2016-10-20_PERMIT FILE - C1981035A (18)

Home Browse Search

indeterminate flake fragments are ofeeten found in which the flake type is not readily apparent. These flakes were assigned as indeterminate flake fragments. Usually, the vast majority of indeterminate flake fragments are non-cortical and probably derived from late stage decortication or flaked tool production. Hammerstones are generally large chunks or cobbles and recognized by battering wear on edges, which is ofeeten seen on cores as well (core/hammerstone). Utilized flakes are unshaped and exhibit retouched edges, evidently used for expedient purposes. Retouched edges or use wear patterns would have to be visually obvious in the field without magnification to be assigned to the utilized flake category. Flaked lithic tools include both informal tools, such as cores, utilized flakes, or hammerstones, and formal tools in which purposeful shaping is evident, such as scrapers, bifaces, projectile points, drills, knives, or choppers. Cobbles or raw materials displaying less than three flake scars are referred to as assayed cobbles. The term non -flaked lithic refers to ground stone implements and other artifacts, such as polishing stones, shaft abraders, ornaments, or non -flaked mauls and hoes. Features, diagnostic points, or any other unique attributes, are measured, photographed, plotted, and described. Site plan maps are generally drawn at a one inch equals 20 m scale and include the site's relationship to existing and proposed infrastructure and topography. A site datum consisting of a rebar with stamped aluminum cap bearing the temporary SEAS site number was placed near the site center. The site was mapped using sub -meter accurate GLS data. For this project, Trimble Geo XT Pocket PC loaded with TerraSync software was utilized to record location data. Site dimensions, site area, and distance to intermittent and named drainages were calculated from the GPS data. Project maps and the site plan map were produced from the GPS data using base maps from Terrain Navigator Pro. GIS project and plan maps were produced by Paula Fluder. On October 17 and 18, 2016, SEAS archaeologist and Principal Investigator Doug Loebig completed the cultural resource inventory. 4.5 Protection and Evaluation of Cultural Resources Cultural resources are protected and managed under a variety laws and regulations by federal agencies. The primary laws under which cultural resource compliance studies are reviewed include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (PL 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 USC 470 et seq.) as amended (implemented under regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR Part 800); the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (PL 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 USC 470aa et seq.) as amended (PL 100-555; PL 100-588); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 (PL 95-431; 92 Stat. 469; 42 USC 1996); and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (PL 101-601; 104 Stat. 3048; 25 USC 3001; 43 CFR Part 10). Cultural resources protected under ARPA, AIRFA, and NAGPRA are typically considered and evaluated under the review process set forth in Section 106 of the NHPA. In addition, the conservation of historic and cultural resources is established through federal policy as a component of the NEPA (Section 101[b][4]) process for federally authorized permits, funding, and projects (40 CFR Part 1 1502.16[g]). Cultural properties considered significant and eligible for listing on the National Register must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and must meet one or more of the following criteria; Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: Association with lives of persons significant in our past An Intensive CRI for GCC Energy's Proposed Groundwater Monitonng Wells on State and Private Lands in La Plata County, CO SEAS 16-098 October 2016 17