PERMFILE66721

• Permit No: C1981019
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/11/2001
• Doc Name: Sections 1 and 2
• Section_Exhibit Name: EXHIBIT 05 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-3-
ADEQUATE: However, presence of unknown sites has not addressed
• nor ~:~ere the possibility of petroglyphs existing in the Yampa
Canyon. The exact number of personnel was not specified.
k) The criteria used to determine whether an area is a site
(archeological and historic)
INADEQUATE: site definition criteria cannot change to fit the
observers intuitive behavior. See p.9.
1) An explicit description of collection and testing methods
INADEQUATE: not specified. It appears that lithic diagnostics
and pottery were merely collected.
m) A description of each site located including:
1) Site number
2) Lega] description of the location
3) Site relationship to surrounding landforms and nearest water
4) Surface extent of site
5) Observed features
• 6) Materials collected - description of the variety and spatial
distribution of cultural remains
7) bite type/function
8) Cultural/temporal affiliation and how determined
9) Elevation
ZO) Physical condition, i.e., eroded, vandalized, well preserved,
etc.
11) Site maps. If testing vras conducted, show the locations of
test pits.
INADEQUATE: None of the information requirements in M.1-11
were addressed or included for all sites.
n) Site forms - appendix. Forms should include a detailed map showing
site extent, artifactual distribution, location of features, etc.
INADEQUATE: no site forr:.s were included and should be for those
sites located within the mine plan area. Inclusion of the site
forms may correct many of the deficiencies of M.1-11 above.
•