REV10340 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

We have objected to the amendment application on three separate grounds: 1) that the extension of activities into the Take Avoidance Area could adversely impact the owls; 2) that the expansion from 40 to 110 acres could adversely impact the owls, and 3) that the application itself is insufficient regarding impacts and protective measures. Local landowners have also objected on the ground that hydrological or sedimentation impacts as a result of the expansion are not properly addressed N the application. The problem in this case seems to be the weakness in the Endangered Species Act enforcement mechanism. Someone should not be able to do as the quarry seems to be doing, trying to force USFWS to accede to a halfway measure like this Take Avoidance Area. If the quarry operators want the protections which ESA provides, they need to invoke the remedy provided by the ESA and go through the Section 10 habitat conservation plan process. However, at the same time, I think that, as the enclosed documents show, there has been a major change in the USFWS's position regarding when an HCP would have to be done, not based on any change in information regarding the owls and their use of the State section. Whether or not it was USFWS' intent, the quarry operators may well treat the May 2000 agreement as the equivalent of an incidental take permit, allowing them to quarry the entire "take avoidance" area, and s an excuse to conduct owl monitoring and do an HCP only if they go beyond the newly-drawn lines. The upshot of this all is that on May 23, the Red Canyon Quarry will go before the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board to seek approval of an amendment to its 1997 quarry permit that will: 1) increase permitted acreage by 275% in direct contravention of both USFWS and CDOW acreage limit recommendations, and 2) allow operations to occur in an area where USFWS at one time stated owl monitoring studies and preparation of an HCP would be necessary, without producing any evidence to show whether or not the change will adversely impact a threatened species, without having conducted the promised studies that might show whether such impacts would occur, and without (to the best of my knowledge) having made any binding commitment to do those studies at any future date -and USFWS says that it is powerless to act effectively. This situation illustrates a clear and serious shortcoming of the Endangered Species Act enforcement mechanism. There have been at least seven agencies involved in the question of how to protect this pair of owls: the USFWS, BLM, Atmy at Fort Carson and Army Corps of Engineers for the federal government, and DMG, CDOW, and State Land Board for Colorado. Yet none of them feels that it has any power to tell a potential "taker" to stop an activity that may constitute a taking, to delay the activity until proper studies can be done, or even to take the kind of stance that might prompt one of the other agencies to step in and act. I spoke to Roger Gephart of the USFWS Law Enforcement Division, 303-274-3561, and he was going to speak to Terry Ireland to see if there is anything other than jawboning that can be done to try to get adequate protections. I have enclosed the original preferred mining area map and a composite map, based on the quarry's Take Avoidance Area map, on which I have sketched the original preferred mining area and the fire/access roads. In addition, I am enclosing letters which USFWS sent to the quarry and to us, which I think indicates that USFWS is taking a much softer stance at present than it did in 1997 or 1999. Finally, 1 am enclosing the USFWS objection letter and Division of Wildlife letter commenting on the permit amendment application. Sincerely, James E. Lockhart, Chair Pikes Peak Sierra Club Group