REV96200 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ~' ~r Ill F rfNt O~ /S `~ ~ United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT a ROYAL GQRGE RESOURCE OFFICE 3170 EAST MA/N STREET CANON CITY, COLORADO 87212 September 10, 1998 Georgianna Contiguglia Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer 1300 Broadway Denver Co. 80203-2137 Dear Ms Contiguglia: IIIIIIIUIIII 111 In Reply Refer to: 3809 Co-057ru RECEIVED SEP } } 1998 DIV. OF MINERALS _ 8 GEOLOGY This letter is in response to a verbal request made recently by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology and as a result of the meeting held at your office on September 3, 1998 during which the subject matter was discussed. We have reviewed the letter of August 17 from the Colorado Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the response from Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Company (CC&V) dated August 27. We have also reviewed the notice of 112d permit for amendment 7 and a map provided by CC&V showing federal lands and areas to be disturbed. Like the SHPO, we have concerns regarding historic mining properties located within the expanded mine site of amendment 7. There has been significant cultural inventory and mitigation work done in relation to amendment 6 and the land exchange but neither SHPO nor BLM have a finished product, thus some concern is understandable. We read the SHPO's letter as simply identifying the concerns held by agencies responsible for cultural resources and a request to insure no state or federal tracts are to be disturbed without appropriate permitting and compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). It was impossible for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the SHPO to make this determination based on the maps we were initially provided and the lack of final results from the earlier mitigation work. The primary concern is that BLM may need to become involved in the processing of amendment 7 and further section 106 consultation. Based on the information currently at hand, this is not our intent. Our review indicates there are no federal lands involved in or impacted by amendment 7 although there are several small parcels within the boundaries. As long as there are no impacts to federal resources requiring a permit from the BLM, there is no federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the National Historic Preservation Act {NHPA). Under these conditions there is no federal undertaking as defined in Section 301, part 7 of NHPA (16USC470), no consultation necessary between BLM and the SHPO, and no designated Area of Potential Effect (APE) which might include BLM lands. We view amendment 7 in a completely different perspective than amendment 6 where some federal lands were directly involved in mining related ,.