Laserfiche WebLink
5/7/2014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Bowie No. 2 Mine <br />Thank you, <br />Sandy Brown <br />Hi Sandy, <br />I've been talking with Foster Kirby and Nicole Caveny about this project. Please bear with me as I learn the <br />system here. It's my understanding that this pond expansion is part of the state permitting program that is not <br />part of a federal leasing or lease modification action. According to Foster, it would be typical in this kind of <br />situation for the state permitting authority to work directly with the SHPO to come to an agreement without the <br />assistance of OSMRE - like you had suggested earlier. However, we would participate if that's what the folks at <br />SHPO /OAHP need. <br />Looking into the project, I found that with the original records from 1996, the SHPO /OAHP requested <br />HABS /HAER level 2 recordings of all structures - both the structures that were originally planned for removal <br />and the structures that were not planned for removal. After the initial submission, the SHPO /OAHP requested <br />additional photographs and those were submitted as well. In total, for the "Coal Sales House" we have one <br />interior photograph and four exterior photographs from the HABS /HAER work and one additional exterior <br />photograph from the initial site recording. Also included is the HAER plan view drawing (A -6). This level of <br />recording /documentation was sufficient in 1996 as mitigation for the other contributing structures that were to <br />be demolished from the site(s). The request now to provide an additional Architectural Inventory Form, <br />suspect, is due to a new form system OAHP has in place since the 1996 recordings. I do not expect that any <br />additional field work should be necessary and the form could be quickly drawn up by the company's approved <br />archaeological /architectural contractor. You will want to verify this directly with the SHPO people. <br />Regarding excavation statement at the bottom of the SHPO letter, did your original permit have a clause for <br />inadvertant archaeological discoveries? Such a clause should satisfy that paragraph. <br />Now, going back to OSMRE's involvement, I would request that you go back to them and again suggest that <br />this modification is not part of any federal leasing action. Also state that Colorado has permit authority for the <br />expansion action without the direct involvement of OSMRE. <br />If the folks at OAHP /SHPO would still like OSMRE's involvement on an MOA, we can participate further on the <br />matter. Foster, please chime in if I have grossly misstated anything. Sandy, if anything I have said is not <br />consistent with your professional knowledge, please let me know. Keep me aware of any future <br />discussion /agreement with the SHPO folks. <br />Thanks, <br />Jeremy <br />On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Brown - DNR, Sandy <sandy.brown@state.co. us> wrote: <br />I'll try this again! I am also attaching the Memorandum of Agreement Joseph provided. <br />Talk to you soon, <br />Sandy <br />---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- <br />From: Brown - DNR, Sandy <sandy.brown@state.co.us> <br />Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:18 PM <br />https: / /mail.g oog le.conVmai I /u /0 / ?ui =2 &i Ire29129fcb5 &view pt &search =i nbox&th= 145d36ae4O3f7468 &si ml= 145d36ae4O3f7468 2/4 <br />