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

Home Browse Search

Data Recovery Report for Three Sites at the Collom Project Colowyo Coal Company 3.1.5 Mechanical Ground Stripping Once the PI determined all data recovery efforts had been completed, Tetra Tech monitored the remaining mechanical top soil stripping activites at each site within the Project disturbance area. The monitors were there to determine if any features, living surfaces, or artifacts were still present within the investigated areas, but not detected during all other data recovery efforts. Such continued monitoring following traditional data recovery methods has proven sucessful for capturing additional information over broad areas on hard rock mining projects in Nevada (Cannon 2012). The continued monitoring could encounter important data regarding spatial organization and utilization of a locality when machines exposed large horizontal sections of identifed living surfaces. 3.2 Laboratory Analysis All recovered artifacts and samples were taken to Tetra Tech's Salt Lake City climate controlled archaeological laboratory for the processing, analysis, and temporary curation. All encountered artifacts were collected for laboratory analysis except HAIR as outlined in Section 3.1.2. All artifact analysis was tracked electronically in our artifact catalog spreadsheet(s) and paper backups. The database cataloged all data recovered from the artifacts and processed samples. Processing of all radiocarbon samples was done by Beta Analytic. The resulting radiocarbon data sheets for all processed samples are provided in Appendix D. All artifacts were prepared using dry brushing and other cleaning and preparing techniques. As necessary, artifacts were further subdivided from field classifications into further sub- classifications. The refined and prepared assemblages first were analyzed as standalone cultural localities; then the whole assemblage was analyzed in aggregate. Standard reference guides and other informational sources were used to assist in the analysis to determine such data as possible function, raw material types, and stage of manufacture. Lithic debitage analysis was appropriately scaled to the recovered lithic sample size. In addition to provenience information, the analysis focused on recording each flake's qualitative and quantitative physical attributes (Table 3). The chosen attributes have been used in similar research to place debitage within theorized lithic reduction and behavioral strategies without employing stage typologies (ex. Patterson 1990; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). A flake shape index expressed as a width/thickness ratio was used as a relative measure of reduction activity occurring that each site. The higher the ratio, the smaller and more refined the item being flaked. Bifaces were divided into two general categories: early stage and late stage (Callahan 1979). The categorical difference between the two stages is the degree which the biface has undergone secondary reduction. Fifty percent or less of the surface area is an early stage biface and 51 percent or more of the surface area is a late stage biface. The study area is positioned among numerous lithic raw material sources that have been studied to widely varying degrees (Black 2000). Differentiating between specific chert and quartzite sources using small debitage assemblages is problematic. Therefore, the lithic raw material type was recorded at macro -level descriptions of general rock type (chert, obsidian, quartzite, etc.) and predominant color attributes. Groundstone and hammerstone artifacts had standard qualitative and quantitative physical attributes recorded for each specimen. The attributes provide descriptive information regarding potential use and purpose of the tool. Tetra Tech February 2018 15