My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58022
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:00:21 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:39:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 05 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT 1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. exhausted with this and the original recording of this site. This site is, therefore, unlikely to add further <br />to our knowledge of the prehistory of the area. The site is considered not eligible for the Register. <br />SLA9570 <br />The testing of this site was completed to aid in its eligibility determination. Testing consisted of the <br />excavation of three shovel test pits. The shovel test pits were positioned randomly in the central and <br />eastern area of the site. The test pits yielded no evidence of intact buried cultural deposits in the site. <br />No artifacts were recovered from any ofthe test pits. The fill in the test pits included a greyish brown <br />sandy loam (varying in depth from 2 - 10 cm) and a dark brown clay loam with a blocky structure. <br />Test pits ended on a light brownish platy regolith. Depth of the test pits varied from 22 to 30 cm. <br />Considering the results of the testing, it is unlikely that buried cultural deposits exist. The site does <br />contains flaked lithic artifacts and several pieces of ground stone. The information potential is <br />exhausted with this and the original recording ofthis site. This site is, therefore, unlikely to add further <br />to our knowledge of the prehistory of the azea. The site is considered not eligible for the Register. <br />MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS <br />Cultwal resowce clearance is recommended with the stipulation that unevaluated and eligible sites be <br />avoided. Protective fencing can be erected to avoid inadvertent damage to the sites. If avoidance is <br />• not possible, mitigation is recommended. <br />REFERENCES CITED <br />Cassells, S, 1997, The Archaeology of Colorado, Revised Edition. Johnson Books, Boulder, <br />Colorado. <br />McKibbin, A.. C. Graham, G.D, Smith, and M. McFaul,1997, The Lorencito Canyon Mine: Results <br />of a Cultural Resource Inventory, Reseazch Design and Treatment Plan, Las Animas County, <br />Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Eagle, Colorado. Prepared for Greystone <br />Development Corporation, Englewood, Colorado, and Lorencito Coal Company. <br />Spath, C, and Cherie Walth, 2001, The Lorencito Canyon Mine, Contour Cuts along Lorencito <br />Canyon, Class III Cultwal Resowce Inventory, Las Animas, Colorado. Prepared for Lorencito Coal <br />Company. <br />Stone, T., 1999, The Prehistory ofColoradoand Adjacent Areas. The University of Utah Press, Salt <br />Lake City, Utah. <br /> <br />LorencitoS V YandTestingCulRpt-RPT(475)Aug01. wpd <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.