Laserfiche WebLink
59 <br />• the acreage, not to be surveyed. To eliminate the danger of crop damage <br /> to cultivated land, 1,055 ac., an additional 2%, were avoided. Other <br />cultivated areas, such as hay fields or fallow grounds, were surveyed if <br />no damage would occur, or else put into the "Field checked, rejected" <br />category, depending on the degree of disturbance present. Overlooked dur- <br />ing the fieldwork phase and not examined at all were 373 ac., roughly <br />lam. <br />The percentage figures in each category in Table 12 are based on a <br />comparison of the acreage for the category with the total acreage for <br />each tract; while the percentage shown for the totals reflect a compari- <br />son between the sum of the acreage in each category and the total acreage <br />in the project. <br />The amount of intensively surveyed area is less than stipulated in <br />`• the contract, and less than was anticipated prior to the onset of field- <br />work. In our opinion, the coverage was adequate, considering the nature <br />of the "Field checked, rejected" area in terms of the environmental <br />characteristics present in the survey area. By eliminating those areas <br />which had extremely limited potential for producing important cultural <br />resources, we were able to survey the more likely locations in additional <br />tracts. It was stipulated in the amendment to the original contract <br />that, insofar as time and financial resources permitted, we were to sur- <br />vey additional tracts, including Tracts 7, S, and 9, as well as other <br />future tracts, where possible. Since it appeared to be a waste of time <br />and financial resources to extend survey coverage any further in the <br />six short-term-lease tracts, we proceeded to apply those resources to the <br />. additional five long-term-lease tracts instead. <br />