Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Section 5 <br />Step II of Contingency Plan <br />f iustified, consist of A FULL MITIGATION LEVEL <br />tnis will minimaiiv oe orior to commencement of mining in tnis section <br />of orooosetl mine area otter SHPU antl USM determinetl the resource is <br />Until we know more about the archaeological potentials of 5DT700, <br />it will be futile to develop a specific mitigation plan. If, however, <br />the Step I test program yields positive results and indicates that the <br />rock shelter really has National Register potential, it will be <br />necessary to build a final mitigation plan. Such a plan will <br />essentially be an elaboration of the test excavation program. In cases <br />such as this, an agreement is usually worked out with all concerned <br />parties and this normally stipulates that a certain percentage of a <br />resource will be excavated. The intensity, as indicated by the <br />percentage of area to be excavated, is usually determined in reference <br />to the nature of the threat posed to the resource. As an example; <br />reservoirs routinely flood large numbers of archaeological sites and <br />only a small percentage of them are excavated. Reservoirs, however, do <br />not necessarily threaten a site with total destruction. They often <br />result in burying resources under alluvium. Removal of a site during <br />excavation for a building foundation, however, is frequently considered <br />a totally destructive endeavor. In the case of coal mine subsidence, as <br />in this case, there is no established precedent available to this <br />writer. Attempts to obtain relative information from OSM have not been <br />successful and Centuries Research's library contained no direct <br />reference to current procedures on this matter. In this writer's mind, <br />however, subsidence would seem to threaten a rock shelter site such as <br />5DT700 with total destruction. For immediate planning purposes, it is <br />recommended that the threat from subsidence and the mitigation effort <br />needs to be developed from that perspective. hitigation will, <br />therefore, need to be geared to the idea that the resource will be <br />totally destroyed. Archaeology is itself simply a form of planned <br />destruction. The mitigation plan will therefore need to do its work in <br />advance of subsidence. <br />It is conceivable that any possible subsidence will not occur for <br />many years and mitigation efforts can accordingly be delayed. This <br />approach would probably be the least cost-effective approach and poses <br />the risk of "oversight" to the resource. Once the test excavation <br />program is completed, the project should be abandoned if the resource is <br />found to be ineligible far the National Register. If it is found to be <br />eligible, then the mitigation effort should be completed in the near <br />future and designed to dovetail with the test program so that only one <br />final archaeological report needs to be prepared. If it is delayed it <br />will be necessary to complete two final reports. There is no cost <br />saving in such an approach. In the event that these excavations at <br />5DT700 indicate the resource is eligible for the National Register, the <br />following general tasks will be needed to complete Step II. <br />-12- <br />