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