Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.04.4 - Cultural and Historic Resource Information and Rule 2.05.6(4) — Protection of Public Parks <br />and Historic Places <br />1) PRI0 requests an increase in affected area of 150 acres. It was found during the review ofPRII (Which <br />mirrors the PRIG application except for it excludes mining in the area TC is currently seeking a lease <br />modification for in the coal lease COC -54608) that permit section 2.04.4 was not proposed to be revised with <br />updated information required by Rule 2.04.4. Given this, TC hired Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. to <br />conduct a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the newly proposed affected area. The Division received <br />the results of this inventory on August 21, 2015. These results have been forwarded to the State Historic <br />Preservation Officer's office (SHPO) for review and the Division is awaiting their response. The following <br />items will need to be addressed: <br />a. The PRIO application revised pages do not include updates to Section 2.04.4 of the permit to discuss the <br />cultural resources inventory conducted for this project. Such language is included in revised pages currently <br />under review for MR289. It would be appropriate to include the language currently proposed with MR289. <br />For consistency, please revise this section of the permit to discuss the cultural resources found within the <br />proposed WCR affected area. <br />b. According to the inventory, two sites; 5RT3324 and 5RT3325 are recommended to be eligible for inclusion on <br />the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and total avoidance is recommended. These two sites are <br />within the area that will be affected by subsidence. It does not appear surface disturbance activities other <br />than possible impacts from subsidence will occur in these areas. TC, the Division and SHPO will need to <br />coordinate to determine if appropriate mitigation and treatment measures are necessary prior to <br />undermining these areas. If mitigation and/or treatment measures are necessaryfor these sites, a discussion <br />of such measures will need to be included in Section 2.05.6(4) of the permit. <br />TC's Response: Section 2.04 has been reviewed and revised to reference and discuss the results of the <br />supplemental cultural resource survey covering the additional subsidence area. Both of the recommended <br />eligible sites are lithic scatters with demonstrated potential for buried cultural material. TC has requested <br />that our archaeological consultant, Metcalf Archaeology, review their information regarding the two subject <br />sites, and provide an assessment of the potential for adverse impacts to these sites from the anticipated <br />mining -related subsidence. TC is working with Metcalf to provide information on the anticipated magnitude <br />of subsidence in the subject areas as a basis for their evaluation. Given the anticipated timing for processing <br />the pending lease modification application, it is anticipated that this assessment can provide for review prior <br />to any final approval. <br />Division Response: Section 2.04.4 of the permit has not been revised with PRI0 to reference and discuss the <br />results of the supplemental cultural resource survey covering the additional subsidence areas as indicated in <br />your response letter. Please revise this section of the permit to discuss the cultural resources found within <br />the proposed WCR affected area. <br />The Division received a letter from SHPO regarding the results of the cultural resource survey, it is enclosed <br />for your review. SHPO concurs that sties 5RT3324 and 5RT3325 are eligible to be listed in the NRHP and <br />request that additional information regarding the nature and extent of potential effects to these site be <br />forwarded to their office for review. Once TC and Metcalf Archeology have completed the analysis as <br />described in your response, please provide this information to the Division for review and we will forward it <br />to SHPO. If mitigation and/or treatment measures are necessary for these sites, a discussion of such <br />measures will need to be included in Section 2.05.6(4) of the permit or this section of the permit will need to <br />indicate that mitigation or treatment measures are not necessary. <br />TC's Response: On 11/03/15, Metcalf submitted a letter to the CDRMS and SHPO summarizing their <br />evaluation of potential subsidence -related impacts on the identified NHRP eligible sites. Given the very <br />limited potential subsidence displacement and change in gradient for the subject sites, Metcalf indicates that <br />potential subsidence effects would be negligible. The SHPO reviewed this information, and provided a letter <br />of concurrence dated 11/24/15. Section 2.04.4 has been reviewed and updated to reflect this supplemental <br />information, and copies of the revised text accompany these responses for replacement in the PAP. <br />