My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-04-16_PERMIT FILE - X201223103
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
X201223103
>
2012-04-16_PERMIT FILE - X201223103
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:56:21 PM
Creation date
4/17/2012 2:58:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
X201223103
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/16/2012
Doc Name
NOI Application
From
Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
KAG
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VII. <br />Reference Cited <br />Limited - Results Cultural Resource Survey Form (page 4 of 8) <br />FIELD METHODS <br />28. Definitions: Site: five or more artifacts or a feature, structure or trail, or any combination of these <br />elements muting 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 area <br />with a 200ft radius. Transect intervals were never more than 50ft. Because of the overall poor surface <br />visibility, special attention was given to finding and examining areas with surface or subsurface exposure. <br />These included cattle/game trails, two -track roads, anthills, rodent backdirt piles, cutbanks, and other <br />disturbed areas. Areas with more than 30° of slope were inspected using wider transects. The shaft location <br />was covered by a 1000ft block centered around the proposed shaft location. Parallel transects were walked <br />again at 50ft intervals in areas which were not disturbed. The northeast portion is heavily disturbed by a <br />haul road wrapping around the east edge and northeast comer. There is also an existing mine facility in the <br />northeast portion. A small section was inventoried outside the block to accommodate an alternate access <br />road from the southeast. The three segments of core access, which will need improvement, were inventoried <br />usin two • arallel transects, one on each of an existin _ two- track. <br />VIII. RESULTS <br />30. List IFs, if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map completed for Part III. <br />A. Smithsonian Number: 5RT2452 Description: Two prehistoric lithic tools. One is a tertiary flake <br />with a bifacially retouched proximal end. It is a cream - colored chalcedony. The other is a biface with a <br />rounded base of a medium tan chert. <br />B. Smithsonian Number: 5RT2453 Description: Biface midsection. Short sections on both lateral <br />edges are serrated. This tool is made from a high quality clear white chalcedony with a couple small dark <br />spots (mineral ?) imbedded in the material. <br />C. Smithsonian Number: 5RT2454 Description: Corner-notched projectile point base (collected). <br />This point is made from a good quality medium tan chert. It is (or very similar to) a point type known as <br />an Eden point. <br />31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why are there none or very limited cultural remains <br />in the project area? Is there subsurface potential ?: Lack of significant amounts of cultural material i5 <br />probably the result of the small size of each survey block and the fact that some of the terrain is rugged anc <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 significarr <br />intact cultural materials in subsurface contexts without any surface evidence. <br />Tweto, Ogden <br />1979 Geologic Map of Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.