Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br />Site Identification and Recordine <br />• When cultural materials were found during inventory, the immediate azea.was cazefully <br />examined to determine the nature and extent of artifacts and features. Sites and isolated finds <br />were distinguished using OAHP guidelines. In azeas where surface visibility was very limited <br />and deposition was known or suspected, some isolated materials were recorded as sites because <br />of the potential for additional materials in subsurface contexts. All cultural resources were <br />recorded on OAHP forms. Site sketch maps were made and overview photos taken of all sites. <br />All sites and isolated fords were plotted on the appropriate USGS topographic map. Artifact <br />collection was limited to temporally diagnostic materials, and a sample of stone from quarry site <br />SLA6981. <br />Test Excavations <br />Very limited test excavations were undertaken at five different sites and in one azea on <br />the floor of Lorencito Canyon. A hand-held two-person power auger, with an 8 inch auger screw <br />and an effective depth of about 90 cm, was used at one site, and a Giddings auger, with a 10 inch <br />auger screw and an essentially unlimited effective depth, was used at the other locations. In all <br />instances, transects of auger probes were laid out at five or 10 meter intervals. All fill removed <br />by the auger was screened through quarter-inch mesh hazdwaze cloth. All recovered artifacts <br />were collected and provenienced to the specific auger probe. Vertical provenience was not <br />recoverable, so depth of cultural materials is limited only by the depth of the auger hole. The <br />test excavations that have been conducted aze considered complete at only one site. Additional <br />• testing will be necessary at the other five locations, including the non-site azea. <br />National Resister Evaluation <br />A National Register Evaluation recommendation has been made for all sites recorded <br />during this project, based on information from surface examination, and limited testing in a few <br />instances. Sites aze recommended to be either not eligible or eligible for inclusion on the <br />National Register of Historic Places, or aze considered unevaluated and more data is required to <br />make a recommendation. Sites that retain sufficient essential integrity aze then evaluated against <br />the National Register criteria for evaluation (36 CFR §60.4). Criterion "d" is usually applied to <br />prehistoric resources. There aze several historic sites within the project azea, and criteria "a", "b", <br />and "c" may be applicable, as well as criterion "d". Most prehistoric sites aze, at present, <br />evaluated based on the potential for additional materials in datable and intact contexts. Thus, <br />sites with limited assemblages, good surface visibility, lacking evidence of datable features, and <br />lacking significant deposition, aze considered not eligible because of limited information potential. <br />Sites that exhibit indication of some deposition, especially in azeas where surface visibility is <br />limited, or that have datable features, are presently unevaluated. Only one site is considered <br />eligible at this time. This site is a primary lithic source that has been intensively exploited and <br />whose material makes up the bulk of the chipped stone debitage assemblages at all sites in the <br />project azea. One site, a possible eagle trap or vision quest, is recommended to be not eligible <br />from an azchaeological standpoint, but may retain significance because of Native American <br />. concerns, although it appeazs unlikely to be considered a traditional cultural property. Two <br />