REV92047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inadequate. This amendment application goes well beyond the FWS boundary line and takes down the two highest ridgelines in the azea that were supposed to be keep intact so they would serve as a light and sound barrier for the breeding pair of Mexican Spotted Owls that nest up the canyon. Without the ridgelines intact the impact of quarrying activities will be felt way beyond the physical boundary line drawn by Mr. Ireland. These impacts could well be felt within the Protected Activity Center (PAC) that is just north of the amended "take avoidance azeas". Taking down these ridgelines will also severely impact the pristine nature of the adjoining Seaver Creek Wilderness Study Area. The MLRB and the DMG cannot approve any amendment that would violate any state or federal law, including the Endangered Species Act (CRS 34-32.5-115). It is the applicant's burden to show that the proposed operation will comply with all of these laws. Based on the information available in the record, since neither the DMG nor the applicant can ensure that the Endangered Species Act will be complied with in all respects, the application must be denied. I also object to the opening up of 110 acres of disturbed azea. It was appazent in 1997 that the Colorado Division of Wildlife was concerned about the impact ofthis quarry to the Mexican Spotted Owls and Chris Kloester states in an April 15, 1997 letter to James Stevens that the applicant has agreed to provide sequential reclamation and limit the disturbed azea to 12 acres at a time. It further goes onto state that the CDO W supports these practices and would encourage their implementation on the proposed site. An amendment application from Red Canyon Quarry was already on file to expand to 40 acres of disturbed area when this letter was written and Red Canyon was granted this amendment application a few months later. I would like to know why the DMG allowed this 40 acre expansion when the CDOW clearly stated that they believed the quarry should not disturb more than 12 acres at one time because of the possible impact on the Mexican Spotted Owl. CDO W did not give approval to this 1997 40 acre disturbed area expansion and I believe the DMG should have denied this 1997 expansion permit. " In the determination of whether the boazd or the oi$ce shall grant a permit to an operator the applicant must comply with the requvements of this article and Section 24-4-] OS (7) C.R.S. (d) The proposed mining operation, the reclamation program, or the proposed