Laserfiche WebLink
03/19/2001 17:53 7195760 MOUNTAINDALE ~RD. PAGE 03 <br />inadequate. Th~~ amo~rnent application goes well beyond the IfiVS bouedary line a~ <br />takes down tlt~, two highest ridgelines in the area that were supposed to be keep intact so <br />they would serve as a light end sound barrier for the breeding paa• of Mexican Spotted <br />Owls that nest up the canyon. Without the ridgelines intact the impact of quarrying <br />actrviRies will be fah way beyo~ the physical boundary line drawn by Mr. Ireland. These <br />imp.ets could weIl be fah within the Protected Activity Center (PAC) that is just north of <br />the amended `take avoidance areas". Taking down these ridgelmes will sL9o severely <br />impact the pristine nature of the adjoining Beaver Creek Wilderness Study Atee. <br />The MLRB a~td the DMG carmot approve any amendment that would violate say state or <br />federal law, ir~chtding the Endangered Species Act (CRS 3432.5-115). It is the <br />applicant's burden to show that the proposed operation will comply with all of these <br />laws. Based on the iafonaation available in the record, since neither the DMG nor the <br />applicant can eroan+e that the Endangered Species Act will be complied with in ell <br />tsspects, the .application must be denied. <br />I also object ro the opening up of 110 acres of disturbed area It wa4 apparent in 1997 that <br />the Cokrado Division of Wildlife was concerned about the impact of this quarry to the <br />Mexican Spotted Owls and Chris ICbester states in an April 15, 1997 letter to Jemea <br />Stevens that the applicant has agreed to provide sequential reclamation and limit the <br />disturbed area to 12 acres at a tune. It further goes onto state that the CROW supports <br />tbeae practices en1 would encourage their implementation on the proposed site. An <br />emtstdaaent tgrptication from Red Canyon Quarry was shandy on file to expand to 40 <br />acres of distinifed area when this letter was written and Red Canyon was greened this <br />amendment ,application a few months later. I would Lice to know why the DMG aIlowed <br />thin 40 acre ct~anvion when the CROW clearly stated that they believed the quarry <br />should sot disturb more rhea 12 acres at one tine beca»se of the poasrbb impact on the <br />Mexican Spotted OwL CDOW did not give approval to this 1997 40 acre disturbed area <br />expaoaion and I believe the DMG should have denied this 1997 expansion permit. " In <br />the determination of whether the board or the office shell grant a perndt to as operator the <br />applicant m~~st coa~ly with the requirements of this article and Section 24-4-I05 (7) <br />C.RS. (d) 7be proposed mining operation, the reclamation program, or the proposed <br />