PERMFILE45355 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Limited-Results Cultural Resource Survey Form (page 3 of 4) V. LITERATURE REVIEW (continued) 25. Known Cultural Resources [n the project area: none In the general region: Several historic sites have been recorded in sections to the north. The closest is over a mile away. 26. Expected Results: MAC anticipated that few cultural resources would be discovered because the amount of previous disturbance. Tt was felt that historic sites had a higher probability rate than prehistoric based on the length of time Euroamericans have developed the general area. [f prehistoric peoples utilized this area any evidence would likely have been destroyed by historic activities and by erosion. VI. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 27. Identify and assess any cultural resources within potential azea of effect VII. FIELD METHODS 28. Definitions: Stte: five or more artifacts or a feature, structure or trail, or any combination of these elements meeting OAHP criteria in a discrete location that is believed to represent the locus of patterned human activity. IF: four or fewer artifacts without evidence of or potential for additional cultural materials or features in the immediate vicinity. 29. Describe Survey Method: Pazallel pedestrian transects were walked with a spacing of less than 20m. Special attention was given to areas affording views of subsurface contents (i.e., rodent back dirt, animal trails, roads and eroded azeas). VIII. RESULTS 30. List IFs, if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map completed for Part III. None 31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why are there none or very limited cultural remains in the project area? Is there subsurface potential?: Portions of the project area have been heavily impacted by dairy farm operations, trash collection activities and construction of roads. Along the northern boundary, toward the east, portions of livestock pens and grain silos have been built on the City's property. Portions of these structures extend into the project by approximately Sm. These aze modem structures and features, made of milled lumber, wire nails, wire pig fence, metal gate hazdwaze and aluminum silos. There aze also three concrete pads which hold livestock watering troughs. One is a concrete trough and two are plastic with six separate watering holes. There is no evidence that any of these strucnves or features, are more than 50 years old. Nothing was recorded for this project due to the lack of relevant age. If older historic or prehistoric material existed within the project boundary it has been destroyed by modern activities. There is some Holocene soil deposition but lacking surface evidence of prehistoric or historic use, there is very little potential for significant intact buried cultural material. References: Tweto, Ogden 1979 Geologic Map of Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.