My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-10-21_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2008-10-21_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:52:20 PM
Creation date
10/22/2008 10:13:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/21/2008
Doc Name
SHPO Concerns
From
AGO
To
Colorado Historic Society
Type & Sequence
AM9
Email Name
BMK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br />The second issue of concern expressed in the SHPO comment letters, and discussed at <br />the meeting, was in regard to the various historic structures located within the permitted area. <br />SHPO expressed concern for proper inventory and recordation of all historic structures on <br />the mine site, but expressed particular concern for proper inventory and recordation of the <br />Simms Ore Sorting House and associated buildings that sit within the boundary of the <br />National Historic District and will be either partially salvaged or demolished in the near <br />future. Pursuant to § 104 (2)(a) of the State Register Act SHPO is recommending that <br />DRMS request that CC&V conduct recordation of the Simms Ore Sorting House and <br />associated structures pursuant to the procedures laid out in SHPO's Level II standards for <br />historic resource documentation. In addition, SHPO is recommending that DRMS request <br />that CC&V conduct similar inventory and recording on all historic structures prior to <br />relocation or demolition. SHPO's main concern is not necessarily preservation of the <br />historic structures themselves, but the preservation of the history of the structures, and is <br />motivated to record this history prior to disturbance either from relocation or demolition. It <br />is understood that SHPO and DRMS have limited jurisdiction over historic structures that lie <br />outside the historic district boundary and are un-registered structures, however, DRMS <br />believes that proper inventory and recordation is a prudent and reasonable request in an effort <br />to preserve the history associated with the structures. <br />It is acknowledged that CC&V has developed extensive plans with the Southern <br />Teller County Focus Group to conserve historic structures to the extent feasible, and have <br />voluntarily relocated structures on site to maintain the area's mining history. SHPO requests <br />that the information that CC&V has independently recorded on the history of the relocated <br />structures (such as original locations and date of relocation) be made available to SHPO and <br />the public. <br />It was discussed that a convenient way for SHPO to remain informed on the plans <br />regarding future handling of the historic structures was to contact, and remain in contact <br />with, the Southern Teller County Focus Group. CC&V has offered to directly correspond <br />with SHPO regarding their plans associated with the structures so that the Southern Teller <br />County Focus Group would not become a middleman in SHPO and CC&V correspondence. <br />Therefore, CC&V has informed DRMS it will voluntarily send all information regarding the <br />structures to SHPO in an effort to keep them involved in the process associated with future <br />handling of the structures. <br />Finally, we discussed whether SHPO should be categorized as an objector or a <br />commenter, and if they are a party as defined in the Mined Land Reclamation Board's Hard <br />Rock Rules and Regulations. It was determined that SHPO is classified as a state agency <br />commenter or interested party as opposed to an objector. It is anticipated that a SHPO <br />representative will be present at the Formal Public hearing and may provide testimony during <br />the public comment period, however, at this time, SHPO does not anticipate participating as <br />a Formal Party and will not be present at the pre-hearing conference. <br />Again, thank you for your time and involvement in the DRMS process. I am pleased <br />that we were able to resolve the concerns raised by SHPO and feel that the requests for
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.