Laserfiche WebLink
United States Department of the Interior <br /> <br />Bl R1:Al' OF L~.\D \f.aNAGE~IE.XT <br />l role tinal.c Rr<ow cc .l rca <br />~=,~' ~"~"'"~'''~ In Reply Refer To: <br />(:~:ug. Culur,,do tiln•?.i 8100 ( 170 ) <br />ENVIROP:h^•~"''AL I+FFFIIRS <br />May 5, 1994 <br />i,ia'r ; ~~94 <br />Brian P. Dunfee <br />Peabody western Coal Company <br />Environmental Affairs <br />1300 South Yale 'Street <br />Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 <br />Dear Mr. Dunfee: <br />WESIE:i(d ~~l`r'"GECiN <br />PEABQDY CGi.L CG:~"~?•`~Y <br />As requested in your letter of March 21, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) <br />has reviewed current information concerning cultural resources to be affected <br />by operation of the proposed Yoast mine by Peabody Western Coal Company <br />(Peabody). The purpose of this review was to determine whether or not further <br />inventory is needed and to decide which sites need to be test excavated to <br />determine eligibility. This review was requested so that the archaeological <br />consulting firm retained by Peabody can complete required fieldwork in May. <br />Final stipulations regarding cultural resources will be attached to the permit <br />once the permit application has been reviewed. <br />• An eighty-acre tract of land located in T.6N., R.87W., Sections 29 and 30 will <br />need to be inventoried for cultural resources if it is to be included in the <br />permit (see Enclosure A). Our records indicate that on July 13, 1992, Peabody <br />requested this tract of land be included in the permit. However, your map of <br />archaeological sites in the Yoast permit indicates that this tract of land is <br />not to be included in the permit. <br />Comparison of the haul road route indicated on Peabody's map of archaeological <br />sites with the route indicated in Metcalf's report shows deviations of up to <br />100 meters in the northern portion of the road (see Enclosure B). Peabody <br />should consult with Metcalf to determine if the archaeologists examined the <br />route that will be followed by construction. If it is determined that the <br />route to be constructed was inventoried, please inform us which map is <br />correct. If it is determined that the route was modified after archaeological <br />inventory, a reinventory of the modified segment will be required. <br />BLM and SHPO have already concurred with the eligibility recommendations made <br />by Western Cultural Resource Management (wCRM) in 1981 for the cultural <br />resources they recorded in part of the permit area. All cultural resources <br />recorded by WCRM are determined to be not eligible. <br />BLM is in agreement with eligibility recommendations made by Metcalf in 1992 <br />for cultural resources they recorded in the remainder of the permit area. <br />Some cultural resources were determined to be not eligible, others require <br />test excavation to determine eligibility. when test excavations are complete, <br />BLM will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as required by <br />the National His*_oric Preservation Act. This consultation will determine <br />whether or not further archaeological work will be required. <br />Site 6RT864 must be test excavated to determine eligibility or else the <br />boundary of the area to be approved for ground disturbance must be revised to <br />• exclude the site. Metcalf recommends the site be test excavated. Peabody <br />recommends that the site be signed for avoidance. Peabody's map of <br />- archaeological sites shows the site to be completely within the area proposed <br />for ground disturbance. Approval of the permit by 8LM would authorize all <br />