PERMFILE119931

• Permit No: C1996084
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/2/2001
• Section_Exhibit Name: Exhibit 05 Cultural Resources Report 3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

35
. Collection of smaller size grades of debitage can be difficult and time consuming. It is
seldom necessary to conduct a 100% collection of these size grades. A controlled sample is nearly
always as informative, and is certainly a more efficient way to handle and analyze these artifacts.
On sites where chipped stone debitage of size grade 4 (approximately one quarter inch) or sma]ler
is common, regular surface collection will exclude artifacts in this size class (debitage from all
surface collected sites will be size graded as part of the analysis, so comparison to other sites can
remain on equal footing). A sample of collection grids will be subjectively chosen from which
artifacts of all size grades will be recovered. This may be accomplished by screening the surface
sediments through eighth or sixteenth inch mesh. The sample should be between about 5% and 20%
of all grids, and will focus on particular activity areas, especially lithic reduction areas. It may be
appropriate for comparison purposes to also sample some areas where these artifacts are less
common.
Ground stone is a particular focus of this research design, and collection of ground stone
from surface contexts for floral analysis may be considered. This will be done in consultation with
a pollen specialist to provide the best possibility of usable results. At this time, it appears that
analyzing ground stone for protein residue holds the most chance of returning positive results for
ground stone used to process pinon nuts or acoms. Starches can be anticipated on ground stone
surfaces used to process acoms, but not pinon nuts. Pollen, because of the anticipated high
concentrations of environmental pollen coupled with low expectation for introducing pollen to
ground stone surfaces through nut processing, is not anticipated to produce informative results. The
• success or failure of early efforts will dictate the degree to which this analysis is continued
Selection of Sites for Mitigation
Any site that meets the National Register criteria for eligibility independent of the rural
historic landscape context (see McKibbin et al. 1997) will be subject to an assessment of impacts
and appropriate treatment as mitigation for proposed impacts due to mine construction and operation.
This is unchanged from earlier recommendations. However, with the creation of the district, many
of the sites previously evaluated not eligible can now be considered contributing elements of the
district. Most of these sites are probable pinon nut and acorn procurement loci and are similar in
artifact content and setting. There is little to be gained by conducting data recovery or other
treatment at each individual site. MAC instead recommends considering these sites a pool from
which a sample of sites will be selected for data recovery as described above, and that this be
considered adequate mitigation for the larger pool of sites.
Sites will be chosen for mitigative data recovery based on their ability to represent the range
of artifact content, diversity and density found on the project. MAC proposes an initial selection of
six to eight sites. The phasing of mine development offers the advantage of periodic assessment of
results, and provides opportunity to refine proposed investigations as work continues. The initial
set of sites are thus perceived as providing some basic information from which the research design
maybe further developed or refined, and additional data recovery may be warranted to substantiate
• early results or explore new questions or avenues of analysis. At all stages, selection of sites from
this pool will be skewed toward sites under most immediate threat of impact. Sites already
recommended for cultural resource clearance within the P3 haul road corridor and R l/R2 haul road