Laserfiche WebLink
40 <br />• the north-facing hillside adjacent to 5MF323. This area appears to <br />have been chained for grazing purposes, and may have been cultivated <br />at one time. <br />Portion Surveyed <br />Table 7 relates the survey data while Figure 4 illustrates the por- <br />tion of the tract surveyed. The primary reason for the large amount of <br />"Field checked, rejected" area is that the slope and vegetation charac- <br />teristics were so uniformly extreme over much of the tract that survey <br />was very difficult to perform. The southern portion of the tract was . <br />largely unsurveyable, but much effort was expended in attempting to cov- <br />er as large an area as possible. In the northern and western portions, <br />the surveyed area is mainly made up of bottom land in the major drainages <br />and any area that has moderate slope. The northern area surveyed has a <br />• relatively gentle slope and extensive vegetation coverage. <br />Site Distribution <br />Cultural resources present in Tract 9 include both prehistoric and <br />historic sites (Table 7C). More sites were located in the drainage bot- <br />toms, at least as far as prehistoric sites are concerned. These sites <br />are mainly confined to the bottoms or to the lower portions of adjacent <br />slopes. This may reflect the greater emphasis placed on clear areas. <br />Where the vegetated areas were examined, negative results prevailed. <br />Four historic architectural sites were encountered: 5MF323, <br />5MF326, 5h1F328, and 5MF329. All four are related to the recent oc- <br />cupation of the area by Euro-Americans. Ax and saw-cut logs, <br />• <br />