2018-03-19_PERMIT FILE - C1981019 (2)

Home Browse Search

Data Recovery Report for Three Sites at the Collom Project Colowyo Coal Company 3.0 METHODOLOGY Data recovery efforts conformed to standard archaeological excavation practice outlined in such texts as Renfrew and Bahn (199 1) and were chosen to support the research design detailed here and in the developed discovery HPTPs (Karpinski 2017a and Karpinski 2017b) approved by OSM and DRMS prior to executing field work at each site. The data recovery methodology was to A) determine the vertical and horizontal extent of the discovered subsurface deposits at each site; B) recover data from the features exposed by mechanical ground stripping activities; C) collect data from any additional encountered subsurface component(s) identified at either locality; and D) determine the integrity of all encountered components and identify what, if any, taphonomic processes that have impacted the cultural component(s). 3.1 Data Recovery Field Work Methodology Since each site was discovered and subjected to data recovery at different times; field work efforts at each location were handled and documented as a unique cultural manifestation. All field data was collected using similar means and materials. The data recovery field work efforts were broken down into three main methodological categories: A) Feature Data Recovery, B) Evaluative Testing, and C) Mechanical Ground Stripping. All data recovery activities, aside from evaluative testing, were limited to the project disturbance area. 3.1.1 Field Data Collection Methods An electronic 1 by 1 m grid with a primary datum was established over each site using a Trimble GeoExplorer 6000 series GeoXH GPS unit. The primary datum for each location was an arbitrary electronic Trimble GPS point to the southwest of the encountered cultural manifestations. The Trimble was used for non -feature artifact point provenience, feature mapping, and overall site mapping. UTM coordinates were recorded in NAD83, Zone 13 North. Photographs were taken using a digital camera with at least a seven -mega pixel resolution. Project photologs were maintained and recorded the date, camera, exposure number, subject, and orientation. On-site documentation utilized Tetra Tech's cultural resource electronic and paper based recordation platforms/forms. Form types include—but are not limited to—photographic logs, artifact/sample logs, excavation unit, feature excavation, and daily progress tracking forms. 3.1.2 Artifact and Sample Collection All recovered artifacts were documented and collected in plastic bags with labels detailing the bag's content, catalog number, provenience information, name of collector, and date of collection. An artifact log was maintained to catalog each recovered artifact. Collected artifacts were transported to Tetra Tech's Salt Lake City office laboratory for cleaning and analysis. Artifacts recovered from the screened matrix were collected per general class with appropriate provenience information. The bags were further sorted for analysis in a laboratory setting. All feature fill was collected as bulk feature fill samples for flotation analysis. Radiocarbon samples were collected from each feature. Heat -altered rock (HAR) recovered within the features was sorted by size class, counted, and weighed in the field. Once analyzed, the HAR was returned to the excavated feature when all investigations were completed. 3.1.3 Feature Excavation For each feature, the appropriate number of 1 by 1 m units was established around its horizontal extent to maintain horizontal and vertical control during data recovery. Point provenience during Tetra Tech February 2018 13