My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE63160
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE63160
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:09:21 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 7:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X199016823
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
6/13/1990
Doc Name
NOI Application W/Exploration & Reclamation Plan
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.
/
128
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
PROJECT METHODS <br />The procedures employed for this project are separated into two categor ies. The first <br />category deals with previous work documented in the survey area; the second explains <br />the methods used during the field survey. <br />LITERATURE SEARCH AND RECOP.DS CHECK <br />An intensive files search was carried out at the Oftice of the State Archaeologist oC <br />Colorado (OSAC) and the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on <br />August 21 and 22, 1979. A search of the Bureau of Land 19anagement (BLM) Little Snake <br />Resource Area files was carried out by Resource Area Archaeologist Sherri Hanson and <br />her report was made to wCR04 on August 27, 1979. The SHPO search indicated no sites <br />were on the National Resister; the BLiVi and OSAC files produced identical inventories of <br />previously documented cultural resources. Findings resulting from the literature search <br />and records check are presented in the discussion of previous research. <br />FIELD METHODS <br />The entire project area received a 100°,o pedestrian survey coverage. Differences in field <br />crew spacing and survey techniques were dictated by tooooraphy and the likelihood of the <br />presence of sites. Tops of ridges were surveyed by parallel zigzag transects spaced 5 m <br />to 20 m apart by two- to tour-man crews. In heavily vegetated areas, the spacing of <br />transects depended upon the presence of game trails, as thickets were virtually <br />impenetrable without such trails. In some cases, transects were partially completed on <br />hands and knees. <br />Alluvial bottoms, fans, benches, and brush flats were transected in a similar fashion, <br />usually without the problems of scrub oak thickets. Steep slopes were surveyed with <br />wider spacing (up to 35 m apart) since the probability of a site existing there is ]ow. All <br />cutbanks, arroyos, exposed surfaces, rodent backdirt and anthills were given close <br />attention by the archaeologists in order to ascertain whether buried sites were present. <br />Aspen groves and lone stands of timber were closely inspected for historic carvings. <br />Exposed rock was surveyed intensively for rock art'and rock shelters. <br />i. <br />5 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.