PERMFILE125516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ III IIIIIIIII I ~ James E. Lockhart 1718 Lorraine St. Apt. B4 Colorado Springs, CO 80906 (719)385-0045 March 22, 1999 Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RECEIVED MAR 2 3 1999 Division of Minerals & Geology Dear Sirs: I am commenting on behalf of [he Pikes Peak Sierra Club Group regarding the proposed Castle Concrete quarry on Table Mountain in Fremont County. We are concemed about the quarry because of the value of the Table Mountain area as wildlife habitat, because of extensive public recreational use of the area, and because of an apparent access problem to the site. Because of these recognized wildlife and public recreation values, the Table Mountain area, including the proposed mine site was proposed by the Division of Wildlife for inclusion in the State Land Board Land Trust. The 11,800-acre Table Mountain area is presently leased by the Division of Wildlife for wildlife recreation purposes. According to Division of Wildlife information, [he area is habitat for deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, rabbit, squirrel, h[rkey, and blue grouse, to name only [he- game animals. The area serves as a wildlife corridor, connecting the Beaver Creek Wilderness Study Area with [mdeveloped lands on Fort Carson. Within the past month, I have observed elk using [he area, apparently as a migration route between winter range on Fort Carson and summer range in the Beaver Creek WSA. I have observed turkey vultures nesting in the southem part of the area, in cliffside habitat similar to that .vhich would be affected by the proposed quarry. The quarry would be located in the heart of the existing wildlife azea, and if not strictly regulated, could have adverse impact on the wildlife. The Table Mountain area also receives heavy public use for wildlife-related activities, as well as other recreation. People traveling between [he northern and southem portions of the parcel are funneled by the existing road system toward the site of the proposed quarry, which is located at the end of a roadway climbing to the top of the Table Mountain ridge, immediately adjacent to a designuied campground, open d~,:.-ing hunting season. Huma[r as well as animal migration routes would be impacted by the proposed quarry, and because the Table Mountain ridge is a flat, relatively narrow ridge bounded by cliffs on both the east and west side, I question whether alternative routes bypassing the immediate vicinity of the quarry can be developed. Although [he quarry would occupy only a portion of [he ridgetop, its location effectively bisects the wildlife area insofar as human travel is concemed. Another possible access to the ridgetop has been effectively cut off by the recent opening of a gypsum mine approximately a mile south of the proposed quarq~. The possibility of conflict between quarry operations and recreational users is exacerbated by [he condition of [he limited access [o the site. The quarry site is at [he end of a S- mile dirt road, with one major fork branchh[g north and providing access to the north slope of Table Mountain. It appears to me that virtually of the recreational users of the area drive this road, while the southem portion of the area, accessible from several small parking areas directly off of State Route 115, receives very little use. Although perhaps only a minority of users drive this road all the way to the quarry site, they all use it and would be impacted by the quarry's operations. The road is already in poor condition, suitable for vehicular use only during dry J