REV100150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SIERRA CLUB Pikes Peak Group of the Rocky Mountain Chapter September 15, 2001 p 1216 r ~cs~(J Pikes Peak Group of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Cluh 522 N. Royer St. Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Reply to: Lames E. Lockhart 1718 Lorraine St. Apt. B4 Colorado Springs, CO 80906 (719)385-0045 lames Dillie Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 • «irrrrlllllrrlllll RECEIVED SEP 1 7 2001 Division of Minerals and Geology Dear Mr. Dillie: Enclosed, please find a request to modify our original request that the Mined Land Reclamation Board reconsider its June 28, 2001 decision in the matter of the Red Canyon Quarry, Permit Number M-1485-043. We are submitting it to take into account new information which we have obtained since submitting the original request, but also to note the fact that despite diligent effort on our part, we have not received some information critical to evaluating our request. We hope that the Division of Minerals and Geology is diligently pursuing this matter and will be prepared at the Board hearing to present a full and current report of the current status of the Red Canyon situation. With regard to the quarry's undertaking to complete a habitat conservation plan, I have spoken to Terry Ireland at the Fish and Wildlife Service Grand Junction Office, who says that he has been in touch with you regarding the proposal to prepare a habitat conservation plan. We of course recognize that the quarry has the right to operate a quarry on Section 36 with proper environmental safeguards and are encouraged that they have stated that they will take the steps necessary to determine what those safeguards should be. However, we must recognized that a promise to prepare a habitat conservation plan is not the same as a completed, satisfactory plan. We hope that in your corversatiens with Mr. Ireland he has explained why the Division of Minerals and Geology and the Mined Land Reclamation Board play a critical role in protecting Section 36 and its wildlife resources. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service can penalize a violation of the Endangered Species Act, this is a poor substitute for incorporating permit conditions that would prevent a violation from occurring in the first place. With regard to the question of the sufficiency of Protective Condition 2, as we indicate in the modified request, Larry Skiffmgton, an attorney and an officer of the Pikes Peak Sierra Club Group, has been trying repeatedly to discuss with various Water Conservation Board officials whether the Board can play the role designated for it in the MLRB order. We are deeply concerned that the Board has not done more [o advise us that they can do so, or even that they are aware of the situation. The one response that we have received was a telephone message, which could have stated that the Board was ready, willing, and able to act, if in fact that was the case. We consequently feel that there must be some question about whether the Water Conservation Board can act, or act