2010-08-27 TFOULK - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HOUSEL: Thank you. Is there anyone else that -? YEH: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we submitted recently was a request for continuance on the contested case hearing in light of some anticipated input that was going to be coming from the State Historic Preservation Division. The reason this application was submitted and at least deemed complete now for the Commission to consider was that on January 26, 2010 – and it’s part of the record – there was a letter from SHPD indicating that they had previously reviewed the project and essentially determined that there was a no-significant-effect determination that allowed this project to proceed forward. Since then, as the Commission may be aware, we have received a letter, I think partially in response to the intervenor’s request for another review from the same agency, from State Historic Preservation Division, requesting that an archaeological inventory survey along with a cultural impact assessment be prepared for the Commission’s consideration. To some extent, it’s not really the way these kinds of procedures usually flow, because once you get a no-effect letter, you get to continue forward. At the same time, the applicant is cognizant in trying to be sensitive to some of the concerns that have been raised by SHPD. And so for that reason, what we did is we are still asking for a continuance of the contested case hearing because we believe that in all fairness to all parties, even though we believe that, from an archaeological inventory standpoint or a cultural impact assessment, that the applicant can still move forward with its proposal, nevertheless, we should vet those issues out and then come back to the Commission with that information. Part of the concern, of course, in this is that it will involve some time issues. At the same time having heard some of the responses from members of the public today, I think it might be a good idea for everybody takes some breathing room to consider some of these issues and to the extent that there is some common ground that can be reached with some of the interest that had been expressed that we at least try to do that. And I’m not going to say that necessarily we’ll be able to accomplish that, but at least try to understand some of those issues further. From real practical standpoint, we’ve had some archaeological assessment going on already. It still does not yet appear to be that there are going to be any significant finds that will result in any probation of the development as opposed to data recovery; we’ll find that out once a report’s done. Once our report’s done, which is probably going to take about a two to three-week period, it then gets submitted to SHPD for its review. That’s where we may find some time delays because, as it’s kind of commonly known, SHPD is understaffed for funding purposes. There are some other issues. And typically, there is a 45-day response period once the AIS or archaeological inventory survey is submitted. Whether SHPD is able to come back in that 45-day period is a big question. We would certainly want them to do that as soon as possible and provide their input. Similarly, on the cultural impact assessment side, that kind of study is not really something that SHPD, even though it has requested it from a regulatory standpoint, is generally involved in reviewing, but we do want to be able to provide it that opportunity. Undertaking that study is kind of a complex set of factors that involves review of archival documents, interviews with witnesses, understanding some of the cultural issues that are prevalent in that area, and then putting that together. That itself will probably take more than the archaeological inventory survey itself, and I’m estimating probably good two, three months perhaps on top of what SHPD has asked for. 25 EXHIBIT C