REV14268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 RMMA on May 18, 2000, shows, the access road stayed within the bounds of "take avoidance area 2". There were no access roads shown in "take avoidance azea 1 ". The Service understands that the map included in the permit amendment application currently under consideration showed "fire access roads" outside ot~ the boundazies of the take avoidance areas. The Service had not discussed fire access roads with the applicant, RMMA, or anyone else previously. The CDOW, in their March 9, 2001, letter to CDMG on this application, voiced concerns with the fire access roads potentially impacting the Mexican spotted owls. The Service also is concerned with the possibility that roads aze planned outside of the take avoidance azeas and believe that all roads should be within these areas or additional "take" authorization under the ESA may be needed. In a few pazagraphs previously, the Service refers to this permit amendment as being an interim or temporary amendment. We refer to it as such because of discussions with Red Canyon, LLC and RMMA regazdmg results of proposed monitoring of Mexican spotted owl habitat use through radio-tracking. The "take avoidance areas" were agreed to by the Service because we believed the disturbance discussed within them would not `take" the owls but would allow continued mining operation without risk of violation of "take" provisions under section 9 of the ESA to Red Canyon LLC and RMMA. We have had discussions with both parties about conducting monitoring of the owls and in their May 18, 2000, letter to the Service they agreed to carry out monitoring. The results of the monitoring would then indicate where future mining could occur without impacting the owls and another permit amendment would be written that would, in the hopes of the Service, limit mining to those non-impact areas. A "take avoidance agreement" would then be written but depending on where Red Canyon LLC and RMMA propose future mining, a Habitat Conservation Plan ((HHCP) may be needed. A "take avoidance agreement" could be written if the applicant and RMMA agree to avoid disturbing the owls and their habitat. A "take avoidance agreement" would not require a permit under section 10(a)(1)((B) of the ESA but if Red Canyon, LLC and RMMA propose to mine in azeas that could potentially take the owl or its habitat a secUOn 10(a)(1)(B) permit and an HCP would be needed. The issue of monitoring to be conducted by RM must be addressed within whichever plan of action that RMMA decides to pursue. In RMMA's May 18~' letter they also stated that they would not conduct blasting from dusk to daylight, would post the area wammg ppeople of a threatened species in the azea, and would coordinate with the Service with iegards to the Mexican spotted owl. In our June 28`h letter back to RMMA we agreed with the blasting restriction and future coordination and did not object to placing signs warning people of a threatened species in the area. If there aze any other mghtt~me activities occurring in the permit area the Service requests that these also be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to the Mexican spotted owl. Additionally, we recommend that native species including trees dominate the revegetat~on mix. Detailed reclamation will be discussed further during development of an HCP or "take avoidance agreement." Sincerely, ~.~. ~.~ Allan R. Pfiste Assistant Colorado Field Supervisor pc: FWS/ES, Lakewood CDOW, CO Springs (Attn: David Lovell) CDMG, Denver (Attn: Jim Dillie) CSLB, Denver (Attn: Mark Davis ENSR Consulting (Attn: Charles ohnson) BLM, Canon City (Attn: Erik Brekke) COE, Pueblo