Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br />• oakbrush. Most of the well locations are within or near drainages where willows <br />and some small stands of aspens were noted. <br />Geologically, the area is primarily rolling to steep with deeply dissected <br />canyons and drainages. Hayden Gulch, along with Dry Creek, Sage Creek and <br />Grassy Creek are major drainages flowing north towards the Yainpa River. The <br />major geologic formations in the area are the Lewis Shale and the Williams Fork <br />Formation which includes the major coal beds of the region. Currently the <br />project area is used for livestock grazing and coal mining. <br />Existing Data and Literature Review <br />Prior to the field survey a files search was conducted through the Office <br />of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Denver, Colorado, and through the <br />Little Snake Resource Area Office (BLht) in Craig, Colorado. These searches <br />revealed no previously recorded sites within any of Peabody's planned actions, <br />and several nearby or adjacent surveys. Interestingly, most of the previous <br />surveys are negative, suggesting either an overall low archaeological site <br />density or highly masked cultural resources. <br />One previously recorded rock art site (5RT118) was Found to be close to <br />a planned access, based on BLM files, but this site is well outside any area of <br />potential disturbance with regards to this action. <br />Previous surveys include work by Johnson (1981) of the Yoast Coal lease; <br />• a seismic line (Avazian 1985), Cox Well locations (Metcalf 1985), and several <br />drill holes For Freeman Coal (Kvanzush 1979; 1982). All of these above <br />mentioned projects produced no cultural resource except £or the Yoast Coal Lease <br />(Johnson 1981) which included over 1400 acres. Only four sites, and four <br />isolated finds were recorded on that project. One of the locations surveyed <br />during this project (H?????) is near the Yoast Coal Study Area. <br />The culture history of the project area is presented in Guthrie et al. <br />(1984), Grady (1984), Mehls (1984) and Husband (1984). <br />Statement of Objectives <br />Based on the results of the records searches, there is a low overall site <br />density in the study area. This may be due to a general paucity of cultural <br />sites in this particular region or it may be due to low visibility in the <br />oakbrush and sagebrush covered areas. Expected prehistoric site types included <br />lithic scatters and rock art at a minimum, since these are known to exist in the <br />area (Johnson 1981; BLM files for 5RT118). Historic mining related sites were <br />also likely in the project area. <br />Overall, a very small area was surveyed For each of these locations. A <br />100' x 100' area centered on the well stake was surveyed for the well location <br />while access corridors were given a 50' coverage. <br />Since no previously recorded sites are crithin any of the planned <br />disturbance areas, field survey was the primacy method used during this project. <br />One previously recorded site 5RT118, a rock art panel and associated scatter of <br />• burned rock is near one of the planned access roads but is well outside of any <br />potential disturbance. <br />Field Methods <br />