Laserfiche WebLink
• IN RESPONSE T'O SENECA II APPARENT COMPLETENESS REVIEW <br />--An explicit description of collection and testing methods for <br />July 1979 and January 1980 reports must be provided. <br />WORM is only associated with the January 1980 report, <br />which is a survey. No testing was conducted at that <br />time. Only artifacts diagnostic of a time period were <br />collected during this survey. <br />--Identify, for all reports, where the artifacts and records are <br />curated. <br />WCRM maintains a curatorial agreement for cultural <br />materials with the University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, <br />Colorado. Field notes are kept on Pile at WCRM, Boulder, <br />Colorado. Site forms are on file at the Colorado Preser- <br />vation office, 1300 Broadway, Denver. <br />--Justified significance statements must be provided for 5RT142, <br />145, 146, and 147. 5RT142 should be re-evaluated in light of the <br />testing data. <br />See tables I, II, and III (criteria responses are outlined <br />• in Table III). 5RT142 was re-evaluated in the testing <br />report, "An Archaeological Testing of Sites SRT139 and <br />SRT142, Routt County, Colorado" (Hand, 1980). <br />In this report, it is stated that a Paleo-Indian period <br />projectile point, typologically dated at 9360 - 9620 B.P. <br />was found o~ the surface, a Late Prehistoric projectile <br />point was found at a depth of 30 centimeters; and at 70 <br />centimeters an articulated domestic sheep skeleton was <br />excavated, indicating the site has been redeposited. The <br />report then states, <br />"The cultural material once assumed to be in site <br />is in reality totally out of context. Based upon <br />this testing program, 5RT142 is not considered to <br />be a significant site. Further investigations at <br />this locale are not warranted" (Hand 1980: pp. 62). <br />(See Table V for a re-evaluation of SRT142 after testing). <br />--The criteria of effect should be applied to all eligible sites <br />to determine direct and indirect impacts. <br />Sites 5RT139 and 5RT142 were the only sites that were <br />declared "needs further work" in the survey report. Sites <br />• 5RT145, 146, and 147 were reconmended to be determined <br />ineligible. Thus, a "no effect" determination was made in <br />the same report. Testing was recommended and carried out <br />on SRT139 and 142; the results were published in the <br />testing report (Hand 1980). 5RT142 was recommended to be <br />