REV14268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 Additionally, the Service thought that the permit amendment application was intended to, at least tempporarily, restrict the entire amount of acreage that could be mined. After discussions with the CDMG, the Service learned that all of the previously permitted land (675 acres) would still be included in [he permit azea and that, as previously stated, the amendment was applied for to increase the acreage of land that could be mined prior to reclamation from 40 acres to 110 acres. The Service has some concern over this since we believe 110 acres is a lot of unreclaimed land at once that may have adverse effects on the Mexican spotted owl. In fact, in 1997 when the Service first learned of the Red Canyon Quarry, there was a permit amendment that we and the CDOW commented on to CDMG, and CROW recommended only 12 acres at a time be disturbed prior to reclamation. In an April 30, 1997, meeting with the applicant and RMMA the 12 acre limit was discussed; however, Red Canyon, LLC was eventually permitted to mine 40 acres prior to reclamation. Appazently, because this was the minimum acreage believed to be necessary by Red Canyon, LLC and RMMA for their opperations. In a February 10, 2000, letter to the RMMA the Service referenced the CDOW's April 15, 1997, letter and the Service's April 30, 1997, meeting notes regarding the 12 acre disturbance limit. In our February 10, 2000, letter we stated that the applicants had agreed to a 12 acre disturbance limit. However, based on our April 30, 1997, meeting notes there was confusion over total disturbance allowed and a 12 acre limit for major (versus moderate and minor or total) disturbance allowed (even though these categories were invalidated in 1995). CDMG still uses these categories informally to set bond prices. Discussions during the April 20, 1997, meeting likely revolved azound the informal use of the categories and, hence, the confusion. The Service also understands that once a reclamation acreage limit is reached that the miners must reclaim land before they can mine in another location within their permit area. In other words the currently permitted 40 acres, or proposed 110 acres, is an initial amount that can be disturbed. After the initial amount of disturbance, the mining operators must reclaim, for example, ] 0 acres of land to mine 10 acres in another portion of their permit area. According to CDMG, the proposed request for an amendment, increasing the mined area prior to reclamation to 110 acres, does appear to be valid with their operation. Furthermore, on March 16, 2001, RMMA verbally stated over the telephone that they would not increase their acreage of mined land prior to reclamation if they did not believe it to be necessary. Increasing the acreage, in turn, increases the amount of their bond held by CDMG to insure reclamation occurs on the site. The bond increase can be unfavorable to the mining operator. Despite the circumstances, the Service is still concerned with 110 acres being mined at once and would prefer a smaller acreage but, whether the initial acreage mined prior to reclamation remains at 40 acres or increases to 110 acres, the Service believes that, in concert with past recommendations,l2 acres (at most) should be reclaimed at a time after the initial mined acreage. The Service understands that CDMG cannot restrict exactly where mining occurs within the permit area and that an agreement to restrict mining to certain azeas, in this case, is between the Service, Red Canyon, LLC and RMMA. However, we wish to reiterate our recommendation to Red Canyon, LLC and RMIVIA in this letter that the total disturbance, including access roads to "take avoidance area 2" be limited to 40 acres. This leaves an additional 35 acres m Part 1 of the "take avoidance area" in the School Section assuming 35 acres is mined on the private land. The Service understands from our March 16, 2001, telephone discussion with RM p that they would like to start constmcting an access road to the southwestern quarter of the School Section in "take avoidance area 2" as early as 2003. The Service recommends limitation of overall mining in the take avoidance areas to lessen [he potential for impacts to the Mexican spotted owl. The spotted owl may occur in or very close to the mining areas in the fall or winter and may be indirectly impacted by occupancy of the mined or reclaimed azeas by great homed owls. It has been documented that great horned owls occupy more open habitats than Mexican spotted owls and will kill spotted owls. During our May 15, 2000, meeting with RMMA we discussed building an access road to the southwest quarter of the School Section entirely within "take avoidance area 2". We agreed that an access road would have to be built across Red Creek but stated that mining operations including access roads should stay within the "take avoidance areas". As the map provided by