Laserfiche WebLink
HISTORY <br />June 16, 2015 <br />Marcia L. Talvitie <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 8203 <br />pivis�on o{ R& Sa etY►on, <br />"1161"g <br />Re: King Coal Mine (Perrrrit No. C-1981-035) Technical Revision No. 24 (TR -24) Response to Midterm Review (HC <br />#68206) <br />Dear Ms. Talvitie: <br />Thank you for your correspondence dated May 15, 2015 (received by our office on May 20, 2015) regarding the <br />above referenced technical revision that proposes a number of modifications to the King Coal Mine permit including: <br />1.) the enlargement of the perrrut boundary by an additional 87.3 -acres; 2.) the incorporation of areas potentially <br />subject to subsidence into the permit area; 3.) the updating of ownership and control information; 4.) the updating of <br />water well information; and 5.) the updating of various permit maps. <br />Of the changes referenced above, it is our opinion that the administrative updates to information and permit maps <br />(corresponding to items 3, 4, and 5) are undertakings that do not have the potential to effect historic properties as <br />described by the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part <br />800). Consequently, these activities will not be addressed further by this letter. However, it is our opinion that the <br />permit boundary enlargement and the incorporation of subsidence areas into the permit area are a type of activity that <br />have the potential to cause effects to historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). <br />In order to assess adverse effects associated with the proposed boundary enlargement along with general subsidence <br />concerns, we have reviewed all information on file regarding prior consultation completed for the King Coal Mine <br />permit area. According to this records search, which was completed with your assistance and that of Dan <br />Hernandez, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist with the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and <br />Safety (DRMS), only limited identification of historic properties has occurred within the permit area. Specifically, it <br />appears that less than 18-percent—or approximately 490 acres of the 2,812 -acre permit area—was inventoried for <br />cultural resources in consultation with our office. <br />In addition to the above cultural resource survey, the project records indicate that supplemental review was <br />completed by DRMS regarding potential subsidence effects to the Crawford Ranch (Homestead) and Mark Crawford <br />Home site, but that consultation did not occur with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribes, or other <br />consulting parties as required by Section 106. Further, it does not appear that subsidence effects were considered in <br />accordance with Section 106 for other historic properties, as defined by 36 CFR 800.160)(1), such as archeological <br />sites, buildings, structures or objects that may be located within the permit area but outside of the ranch study <br />referenced above. <br />Under the process established for the protection of historic properties, as required by Section 106, it is the statutory <br />obligation of the lead federal agency to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 and to ensure that an agency official <br />with jurisdiction over an undertaking takes legal and financial responsibility for Section 106 compliance (36 CFR <br />800.2). Consequently, the appropriate application of the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR 800.4) requires that the lead <br />federal agency not only "make a reasonable and good faith effort" to identify historic properties located within the <br />entire area of potential effects (APE), but to assess and mitigate adverse effects to these properties in consultation <br />