PERMFILE72813

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/25/2005
• Doc Name: 1st A.R. - Modifications to Application
• From: Banks and Gesso LLC
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067
Response to Jan. 21 Adequacy Review
March 23, 2005
Page 14
quarry, and is in many areas more abundant than on Section 26
(the location of the quarry). The area proximate to the common
boundary of Sections 23 and 26 is not within the mining area of the
current proposal and we concur with Mr. Squire that a minimal
effect on wintering elk forage base is the extent of this impact.
2.) We concur with the Division that asite-specific wildlife inventory is
not required under Exhibit H. Habitat impacts may be inferred and
appropriate mitigation and reclamation techniques developed from
the information provided. We understand that DMG procedures
typically include referral to the Division of Wildlife; we will review
comments or suggestions offered by the DOW if and when
available.
3.) Responding specifically to Rule 6.4.8(1)(c), no state or federal
threatened or endangered species resides on the proposed quarry
site or in its vicinity, nor do any other species of special
conservation concern to state or federal wildlife agencies. We have
contacted both the Black Hawk District Manager of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
confirm this information regarding the absence of protected species
in the vicinity of the site.
Golden eagles are not a threatened or endangered species, but it
should be noted that the nearest point of the cliff referenced by
Estella Leopold's letter, at the northwestern corner of the legal
description of the property proposed for permitting, is over 1/3 mile
from the nearest point on the perimeter of the 100-year "Eventual
Quarry Limits," shown on Exhibit C-2D. The cliff is an additional
1,200 feet, for a total distance of over 3,000 feet, from the limits of
mining proposed under the current reclamation review. A survey of
on-line federal wildlife and permitting resources indicates that a 500
foot to 1,000 foot radius is considered sufficient to protect eagles
from blasting activity. Even if golden eagles were subject to Rule
6.4.8(1)(c) or other special consideration, it is unlikely that mining
activities will have any direct impact on the noted nesting site based
on topography and distance from mining activities.
6.4.12 Exhibit L.
Drilling & Blasting. Cost issues associated with reclamation of highwalls
were discussed in adequacy review comments submitted by Allen
Sorenson pursuant to Rule 6.5. The comments are considered in our
response to Rule 6.5, referenced below. Since we conclude that mined
highwall slopes do not require significant additional drilling and blasting to