2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)

Home Browse Search

Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C. Ms. Amy Eschberger December 19, 2017 Page 4 Manitou limestone which is a deep aquifer recharged by the fractured granite. Whether the destruction of the granite system as proposed by the mine will adversely impact recharge of the aquifer upon which the Ingersoll well relies is uncertain and has not been proven by Transit Mix. Fails to Satisfactorily Account for the Safety and Protection of Wildlife The proposed quarry would significantly adversely impact the area's unique wildlife that the land supports. What is certain is that the area proposed to be mined is very rich in wildlife, which include deer, elk, bobcats, mountain lions, elk, black bear, coyote, fox, a multitude of small mammals, and over one hundred species of bird, including a huge wild turkey population that thrives in this location and a wide variety of birds of prey. The proposed mining site is within a migratory corridor for animals, including elk and mule deer, and is a critical connection point in the conservation landscape. The proposed Quarry site is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. The quarry plan will essentially cut off and thus threaten this critical wildlife resource. Significantly, both the statutory provisions and the applicable Rules and Regulations require that the safety and protection of wildlife be considered in the application process. See C.R.S. § 34-32.5-102 and 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 3.1.8. This Second Application does not adequately account for the safety and protection of wildlife. Reclamation Reclamation is always a challenge, and the struggle that Transit Mix has had with the scar on the north side of Colorado Springs is a living example. While Transmit Mix has a proposed reclamation plan, from our reading of the plan and the review of the plan by others with greater expertise, it is clear that it does not propose to return the quarry site to the unique and pristine eco system and environment that exists today. Statutory provisions require that the reclamation plan provide for revegetation that is at least equal to the natural vegetation of the surrounding area — a requirement that is virtually impossible given the special and unique characteristics of the area. See C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(f). It would appear that the proposal is to provide some "generic" revegetation, and not provide for the diverse and unique species that exist and make that area special today. While the ultimate success of the proposed reclamation is questionable itself, it is clear that even under the best assumptions, we would be losing forever this special and unique eco system which has previously been determined to be worthy of preservation. That would be a sad day and a bad mistake by Colorado if the Second Application were to be approved. Second Application is Incomplete There are many inaccuracies in the Second Application as pointed out in the objections filed by Nancy Reed which we will not repeat but incorporate by reference. One of the issues raised in conjunction with the First Application, and which remains an issue with the Second