Laserfiche WebLink
Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Rood 1989); Yoast Mine Expansion Area - Peabody Coal (Travis & <br />Sheilds 1994); Western Cultural Resource Management: Yoast Coal Lease (Johnson et al. 1981); Powers <br />Elevation: Peabody Coal Co. 4 Alluvial Well Locations at Seneca II Mine (Freidman 1987); Seneca Mine <br />Project 3 Alluvial Well Locations for Peabody Coal Co. (Friedman 1988); Seneca Project 4 Surface Water <br />Sites Peabody Coal Co. (Friedman 1988); Grand River Institute: A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory <br />of the Hayden Gore Pass 345 KV Transmission Line Routt and Grand Counties, Colorado (Conner & <br />Langdon 1985); Foothill Engineering Consultants, Cultural Resources Survey of the Hayden-Gore Tap <br />138KV Transmission Line, Routt and Grand Counties, Colorado. Volume I & Volume II (Hoefer et al. <br />1995); Peabody Coal CPY Cow Camp Drill Sites (Evans 1985) <br />In the general region: Numerous other inventories, most relating to coal mining, seismic exploration and <br />power line construction, have been conducted in nearby sections. Most are either linear or small block <br />surveys. <br />V. LITERATURE REVIEW (continued) <br />25. Known Cultural Resources <br />In the project area: No cultural resources were found within the APE. <br />In the general region: Several sites have been recorded in surrounding areas. None are within a <br />quarter mile and none will be impacted by the current project. <br />26. Expected Results: Both historic and prehistoric sites, and isolated finds were considered a possibility. <br />It was felt historic sites/IFs would be the more common. Prehistoric usage would have been limited <br />due to the and environment and somewhat isolated nature of the area. If these sites existed, they most <br />likely would have been destroyed by historic activities within the area. <br />VI. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES <br />27. Identify and assess any cultural resources within potential area of effect: none exist <br />VII. FIELD METHODS <br />28. Definitions: Site: five or more artifacts or a feature, structure or trail, or any combination of these <br />elements meeting OAHP criteria in a discrete location that is believed to represent the <br />locus of patterned human activity. <br />IF: four or fewer artifacts without evidence of or potential for additional cultural <br />materials or features in the immediate vicinity. <br />29. Describe Survey Method: The staked core holes were inventoried with a circular transect covering an <br />area with a radius of 100ft (200ft diameter). Transect intervals were never more than 50ft. Because <br />of the overall poor surface visibility, special attention was given to finding and examining areas with <br />surface or subsurface exposure. These included cattle/game trails, two-track roads, anthills, rodent <br />backdirt piles, cutbanks, and other disturbed areas. Areas with more than 30° slope were only visually <br />inspected. <br />VIII. RESULTS <br />30. List IFs, if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map completed for Part IIl. <br />None <br />31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why are there none or very limited cultural <br />remains in the project area? Is there subsurface potential?: Lack of cultural material is probably <br />the result of the small size of each survey block and the fact that some of the terrain is rugged and <br />isolated, while the other areas have been heavily impacted by CRP activities. There is limited Holocene <br />deposition in small areas within and near the drainages. However, it would be unlikely to have <br />significant cultural materials in subsurface contexts without surface evidence.