PERMFILE63160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 • Existing Data and Literature Review Prior to the Field survey a Files search was conducted through the OfFice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Denver, Colorado, and through the Little Snake Resource Area OfFice (BLM) in Craig, Colorado. These searches revealed no previously recorded sites within any of Peabody's planned actions, and several nearby or adjacent surveys. Interestingly, most of the previous surveys are negative, suggesting either an overall low archaeological site density or highly masked cultural resources. Previous surveys include work by Johnson (1981) of the Yoast Coal lease; a seismic line (Avazian 1985), Cox Well locations (Metcalf 1985), and several drill holes For Freeman Coal (Kvanzush 1979 1982). All of these above mentioned projects produced no cultural resource except for the Yoast Coal Lease (Johnson 1981) which included over 1400 acres. Only Four sites, and four isolated finds were recorded on that project. The culture history of the project area is presented in Guthrie et al. (1984), Grady (1984), Mehls (1984) and Husband (1984). Statement of Objectives Based on the results of the records searches, there is a low overall site density in the study area. This may be due to a general paucity of cultural sites in this particular region or it may be due to low visibility in the oakbrush and sagebrush covered areas. Expected prehistoric site types included • lithic scatters and rock art at a minimum, since these are known to exist in the area (Johnson 1981; BLM files for 5RT118). Historic mining related sites were also likely in the project area. Overall, a very small area was surveyed For each of these locations. A 100' x 100' area centered on the flume stake was surveyed for the flume location while access corridors were given a 50' coverage, unless otherwise noted. Since no previously recorded sites are within any of the planned disturbance areas, field survey was the primary method used during this project. Field Methods Each flume location was surveyed by Rood and Spurr walking 30' (15m) interval transects across the 100' x 100' area centered around the stake marking the flume location. Ted Smith or Jim McCulluch accompanied the MAC crew on the survey. They showed us each location and were on hand to answer questions about disturbance and access. All exposed areas such as rodent backdirt and natural exposures were closely inspected for cultural resources. Overall ground surface visibility was highly variable on the locations but adequate for the detection of cultural resources. Access routes were surveyed by walking the flagged route in a sinuous pattern. A 50' corridor, centered on the Flagging at least in consultation with the engineers, was surveyed. As previously mentioned, the access to the Flume in Section 16, T5N, R8'7W was given a 100' survey corridor since it was not staked. This access was surveyed after consultatio~i with Ted Smith and Jiin h]cCulluch of Peabody. • Results and Reconunendations No cultural resources were discovered on any of the five Flume locations or access routes. Cultural resource clearance is recommended for the project.