Laserfiche WebLink
€01 <br />HISTORY <br />September 1, 2015 <br />Jared L. Ebert <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety23q <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Foidel Creek Mine (Permit No C-1982-056), Minor Revision No. 287 (HC # 67400) <br />Dear Mr. Ebert <br />Thank you for your e-mail correspondence dated August 25, 2015 requesting our expedited review and comment on <br />the above referenced undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its <br />implementing regulations 36 CFR part 800. <br />Following our preliminary review of the documentation provided including Metcalf Archaeological Consultants' <br />report titled "Twentymile Coal Company LLC: A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Wolf Creek <br />Bleeder Air Exhaust and Subsidence Block in Routt County, Colorado," we understand that Minor Revision No. 287 <br />(MR287) proposes to permit surface drilling within Twentymile's Wolf Creek Reserve Specifically offset drilling is <br />planned by the project proponent within its WC -30 area as well as for three additional "proposed exploration zones" <br />as shown by Figure EX52-F7. In consideration of the documentation completed by Metcalf Archaeological <br />Consultants (Metcalo, it is our opinion that use of WC -30 for offset drilling will result in no histonc properties <br />affected pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) With regard to the three exploration zones that are part of your MR287 <br />permit review, we believe that additional cultural resource identification is needed. <br />Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that the federal agency complete what it <br />terms "reasonable and good faith" effort and that it recognize that the "passage of time, changing perceptions of <br />significance, or incomplete prior evaluations may require the agency official to reevaluate properties previously <br />determined eligible or ineligible" [see 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1) and (c)(1)]. Additional guidance by the Advisory Council <br />on Historic Preservation (ACHP) within its Archaeology Guidance (Point 24: How should Federal Agencies consider <br />past planning, research, and studies in determining the appropriate level of effort for identification; see <br />htrp //www ache goy/docs/r1CI IP°io2OARCI LyEOLOGY° u20GU1DANCE.Fdf), provides clarification regarduig <br />how the agency may determine what is "reasonable" and "complete." Additional field study, for example, may not <br />be warranted if past archaeological survey is found to conform to "current professional standards" and is reliable and <br />accurate. Additional fieldwork may well be warranted in situations where this is not the case. <br />According to a database search provided on August 26, 2015 by Melissa Elkins, Project Manager/Regional Project <br />Coordinator with Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, identification within large portions of the 270 -acre proposed <br />exploration zones was completed in the late -1970s by the Laboratory of Public Archaeology (LOPA) and Powers <br />Elevation for the then proposed coal lease and lease expansion projects After review of these documents it does not <br />appear that the field methodology meets our current guidance for intensive level inventory that we now recommend <br />prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. In fact, the LOPA survey for the initial lease sale used <br />an average transect width of 50-m between surveyors, nearly triple that of our currently recommended interval <br />spacing of 15-m, while 30-m spacing was used for identification during Power's survey of the 1,365 -acre expansion <br />area. Consequently it is our office's recommendation that supplement identification survey occur within the 270 -acre <br />exploration zones to supplement the preliminary data currently on file for these areas. At the time of this survey we <br />