Laserfiche WebLink
~ ~ RECEIVED <br />SEP 1 1 2001 <br />September 15, 2001 <br />Division of Minerals and Ceolagy <br />BEFORE THE COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />Amended Request for Reconsideration <br />In the matter of: 112 Permit Amendment application, Red Canyon Quarry, Permit JJ M- <br />1985-043. <br />We, the Pikes Peak Sierra Club Group, respectfully request permission to submit <br />the following as an amendment to our August 10, 2001 reconsideration request, which <br />asked that the Mined Land Reclatnation Board reconsider its June 28, 2001 decision in <br />the matter of the Red Canyon Quarry, Permit Number M-1985-043. <br />We continue to believe that that Protective Conditions A and C accompanying the <br />order are inadequate to ensure that the quarrying operation will be carried out in <br />compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and that reconsideration of these <br />conditions is warranted. However, we have since been advised by the United States Fish <br />and Wildlife Service that the quarry operators have agreed to prepare a habitat <br />conservation plan. Mr. Robert Stack, the quarry owner, has confirmed that the quarry is <br />in the process of preparing such a plan. We therefore would like to amend our request to <br />take into account this new information. <br />Our present request seeks, in part to have Protective Condition A rewritten <br />a. to require that proper owl monitorin¢ studies be completed within the timeframe <br />specified by the Fish and Wildlife Service in order to ascertain the effect of the proposed <br />quarry expansion. <br />b. to define the manner in which the applicants must show compliance with the ESA prior <br />to disturbing any acreage. <br />Inasmuch as a habitat conservation plan would seemingly incorporate these two <br />requirements, we request that, in the alternative to adding the specified language, the <br />Board consider whether it would be more appropriate to amend the last sentence of <br />Protective Condition A to include an express requirement that a habitat conservation plan <br />be completed in a timely manner and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. We <br />suggest the following: <br />"The applicant must submit evidence to the Division, including a habitat <br />conservation piar, prepared-by the applicant and approved by the United States Fish and <br />Wildlife Service, showing that the mining operation is in compliance with the ESA prior <br />to disturbing any acreage within the permit area." <br />We continue to feel that reconsideration is made more appropriate in light of the <br />quarry's recent application for an amendment to its Fremont County conditional use <br />permit. This application raises questions that could be resolved in a habitat conservation <br />plan. Such a plan would take into account both the level the applicants' activities and <br />any change in the type of activities, such as addition of an asphalt or batch plant. It <br />would also either supersede, supplement, or justify the conditions in the Take Avoidance <br />Agreement which we have questioned, such as the condition barring nighttime blasting <br />but allowing other nighttime operations, and would establish what precautions are <br />necessary to permit operations in various portions of the leased State section, including <br />the Take Avoidance Areas. Incorporation of an express condition to complete a habitat <br />conservation plan would therefore address the other issues raised by our current <br />-- _~ ~ <br />~~--- <br />