PERMFILE65264 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

position that this proposal includes federal action and significant impacts, and therefore that an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The application reflects that on or before May 27, 1997, the BLM has provided the applicant infoanation on cultwal resources, "BLM has identified two cultural sites on the subject lands." Application at 36. In spite of this identification and notification, applicant has conducted exploration activities on the proposed site. These activities have been referred to the DMG and is being pursued as a violation of Colorado law. In addition, the applicant has not indicated that any action is being taken or will be taken to ensure that this undertaking complies with the federal laws that apply to cultural resources including: National Historical Preservation Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Archeological Resources Protection Act. The BLM has denied disclosure of requested information pursuant to Archeological Resources Protection Act exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act. Neither the applicant nor BLM have indicated that they intend to seek an application for a permit to excavate or remove the identified cultural resources. BLM archeologist Leon Lujan has indicated that no such permit has been applied for or granted. The application indicates that it may be contrary to federal wildlife laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Peregrine Falcons, Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles may hunt in the area and neotropical migratory birds use the area. The application does not indicate an intent to seek exceptions to the federal laws that prohibit the "take" of protected species by private actions. The application does not indicate that appropriate procedures concerning the federal consultation processes have been initiated. The deficiencies in the application that are set forth in section I and II of this letter and previous written statements identify numerous areas where the proposal is contrary to federal laws and regulations and give sufficient grounds to deny the application under §34-32.5- 115(4)(d), C.R.S.. IV. The reclamation plan does not conform to the requirements of section 34-32.5-116. The reasons stated above in section I give specific reasons why the reclamation plan is deficient. In addition to these reasons, although the notice requirements indicate that the land use will be rangeland, the BLM manages this land under a mandate of "multiple use" which