2008-08-18_REVISION - C1980007 (3)

Home Browse Search

Limited-Results Archaeological Survey Form (page 6 of 10) VIII. RESULTS 30. List Ifs, if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map completed for Part III. A. Smithsonian Number: None Description: B. Smithsonian Number: Description: C. Smithsonian Number: Description: D. Smithsonian Number: Description: E. Smithsonian Number: Description: 31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why are there none or very limited cultural remains in the project area? Is there subsurface potential? It would seem that the primary reason that no cultural resources were found during the inventory is the presence of dense forest, brush, and vegetative ground cover that precluded the discovery of any sites or isolated finds that may be present in the area. There are, however, several areas that were examined where cultural resources should have been visible if they were present, such as open ridge tops and benches adjacent to streams. The lack of sites in such areas is puzzling. The findings of this project, however, are similar to those of previous inventories in the area, most of which also found few or no cultural resources. One factor that may partially explain the paucity of sites is the unsuitability of much of the steep, rugged terrain for habitation or even limited activities. Yet, a number of areas - primarily along drainages -are both readily accessible and would have suitable for prehistoric occupation and resource procurement. The lack of evidence for the.prehistoric use of such locales is, therefore, difficult to explain. It is possible that geomorphological processes have rendered such sites, if they exist, difficult to see. Favorable areas may retain intact, buried cultural deposits for which no surface indications are present, but this cannot be confirmed. Recommendations The drill pad parcels and proposed access road routes have been adequately inventoried and no further archaeological work is recommended for these areas. The drilling program and road construction will result in no adverse effects to any known cultural resources. References Cited Applegarth, S. M. and R. W. Biggs 1977 Arco Stream Measuring Devices. Letter report. Department of Anthropology, Fort Lewis College. Collins, S. M., F. A. Patterson and E. S. Cassells 1979 Dry Fork Oakbrush Burn, Gunnison National Forest, Final Report. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Conner, C. E. 1984 Cultural Resource Inventory Report - Three Proposed Wells in the Minnesota Creek Drainage, Gunnison National Forest, Gunnison County, Colorado. Grand River Institute. Grand Junction, Colorado. DeCeaser, M. 1981 Minnesota Creek and Dry Fork of Minnesota Creek Gauge Stations. Negative Cultural Resources Report. USDA Forest Service, Gunnison National Forest. Metcalf, M. D. . 1989 Cultural Resource Inventory of One Drill Site Location, West Elk Coal Company, Gunnison County, Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Eagle, Colorado.