Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to approve with conditions. If left unresolved at the time of the proposed decision, the AVS <br />recommendation would require that a stipulation be attached to the proposed decision. <br />The Division did not receive any comments from the public concerning Permit Revision No.4, <br />nor were there any requests for an informal conference. <br />In response to the Division's completeness letters, several state and federal agencies sent <br />adequacy letters to the Division concerning PR-04. The Colorado Historical Society (CHS) sent <br />a letter, dated October 27, 2000, in which [hat agency stated that they had no comments or <br />concerns, provided that there was no surface disturbance associated with the revision. The <br />Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) sent several letters, the first dated December 15, <br />2000, in which the issue of the protection of the Terror Creek Reservoir was brought up. The <br />CDWR discussed the need for implementation of an instrumentation and monitoring plan well <br />before mining is to occur within one mile of the reservoir embankment. In a letter dated February <br />9, 2001, the CDWR proposed a four point program, along with due dates, that BRL should <br />implement, that would assure a proper monitoring plan for the Terror Creek Reservoir. <br />Stipulation No. 9 was attached to the proposed decision to deal with this issue. <br />In a letter dated December 14, 2000, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) <br />stated that no further consultation with the USF&WS was needed for the activities proposed in <br />PR-04. No increase in the water depletion estimate was proposed in PR-04. Also, no threatened <br />or endangered terrestrial species would be affected by the activities proposed in PR-04. <br />The United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USDA-FS) sent an adequacy letter, <br />dated December l5, 2000, in which the USFS requested answers to several questions. The issues <br />concerned the proposed mine plan, subsidence, surface and groundwater hydrology, protection of <br />the Terror Creek Reservoir, water augmentation and reclamation. Stipulation No. 10 was <br />attached to the proposed decision so that federal water rights would be covered under acourt- <br />approvedwater augmentation plan, if those resources would be adversely affected by mining. <br />In a letter dated February 5, 2001, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requested that certain <br />Federal lease requirements issues be addressed, as they relate to Map No. 1, "Surface <br />Ownership." One issue involved entry restrictions and how they may vary, depending on <br />whether the surface is managed by BLM or USDA-FS. Also, inventories for cultural resources <br />and for threatened and endangered species and sensitive plants would be required before entry <br />or surface disturbance can be allowed, if at all. Finally, certain resources are to be protected from <br />subsidence and from surface disturbances. <br />The operator sent additional material in a submittal dated December 8, 2000 and received at the <br />Division on December 11, 2000. In that submittal, BRL modified its mine plan, based on the <br />results of a recent exploratory drilling program. <br />In a submittal dated January 17, 2001 and received at the Division on January I9, 2001, BRL <br />responded to the Division's second adequacy letter. Most of the Division's concerns were <br />answered satisfactorily. However, several issues remained. Therefore, the Division sent a letter, <br />9 <br /> <br />