Laserfiche WebLink
~~' 3 0 <br />GIA survey plats, however, the information depicted on the <br />topographic maps is static: they show only the cultural features <br />that were present at the time the map was compiled. These <br />features may be named (e.g., Pinyon Valley Ranch, San Isidro <br />Church, or Medina Plaza), but more often are simply identified <br />generically (e.q., corral, gravel pit, quarry, or cemetery). <br />They also do not state who built those features, whether or not <br />they are presently being used, and the exact nature of those <br />resources. Again, other sources of information, and on-the- <br />ground verification, must be used to answer these questions. <br />h <br />PREHISTORIC METHODS <br />' information sources about prehistoric localities in the project <br />area are even more limited. We cannot resort to any historic <br />records since these will not, for the most part, contain any <br />information about prehistoric resources. Many of these resources <br />ar obviously much older than any historic documents, and most are <br />too ephemeral to be recognized by a mapping agency. There are <br />some exceptions, of course. First, in some areas of the state, <br />such as the southwest, prehistoric sites are so pervasive and so <br />obvious that they will often be depicted on topographic maps; for <br />example, as "Indian ruins" or "cliff dwellings." That is not the <br />case in the project area. Second, some secondary references may <br />mention the existence of some aboriginal camp or prehistoric <br />material. But, afield inventory would be required to verify the <br />existence of these resources. <br />Thus, a determination of the kinds and numbers of prehistoric <br />resources in the project area relies upon the results of previous <br />- archaeological inventories. The first step, then, is to request <br />a search of the Colorado Inventory of Cultural Resources from the <br />CHS-oAHP. The search results provide information on surveys that <br />have been conducted in the project area, and they summarize the <br />data on sites that were found by these surveys. To supplement <br />this information, one may examine the results of archaeological <br />surveys conducted near the project area and extract data that can <br />-. be used to formulate interpretations of regional prehistoric <br />settlement patterns. If patterns can be detected, then it may <br />be possible to predict how many prehistoric resources may be <br />found in the project area, where they may be located, and what <br />they are. One must use this information .cautiously, however. <br />The accuracy of the predictions are only as good as the original <br />data. Also, these predictions assume that the parameters of <br />settlement for the project area (such as environmental situation) <br />are reasonably isomorphic with the original data base. If not, <br />one is comparing apples and oranges. <br />Two archaeological studies will be used to formulate predictions <br />of prehistoric site density and distribution in the project area. <br />The first is a Class II (sample-oriented) survey of 10,080 acres <br />of BIM lands between the Purgatoire and Apishapa Rivers in <br />southeastern Colorado, conducted by the Office of Public and <br />