Laserfiche WebLink
• grades, dense ground cover, and lack of sites in other portions of the <br />area or along the sample transect were adequate reasons for not sur- <br />veying this portion of the lease area. <br />Concerning the coverage of the remaining area, north-south tran- <br />-- sects were employed, with a mean distance between surveyors of 20 m. <br />This distance was increased on steep slopes and decreased in areas of <br />good ground visibility. In this manner, the entire area was covered in <br />four working days by a four-person crew, or in 16 person-days. <br />No subsurface testing was performed. While systematic shovel prob- <br />ing might have been considered as an alternative, especially in scrub- <br />oak dominated areas, to a simple pedestrian survey, this also has its <br />limitations. Specifically, shovel tests are unreliable in areas where <br />• site density is low and/or sites are very small (Lynch 1980). This is <br />precisely the situation in the current survey area, based on previous <br />research and general expectations based on local environment. Shovel <br />--~ testing would easily fail to recover sites which are both extremely <br />~ small and rare, since reliable results depend on both large site areas <br />and high artifact densities (Lynch 1980). <br />r- LABORATORY METHODS <br />L <br />~ As no cultural resources were located, no laboratory procedures <br />were involved. <br />r <br />• <br />13 <br />