pinon ridge mill - redacted cultural resources report (part 2) cooper property

7/31/2019 Pinon Ridge Mill - Redacted Cultural Resources Report (Part 2) Cooper Property

1/26

ADDENDUM

CLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FORENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PION RIDGE MILL PROJECT

COOPER PROPERTY

MONTROSE COUNTY,COLORADO

Prepared for

Energy Fuels Resources Corporation44 Union Boulevard, Suite 600

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Prepared by

ERO Resources Corporation1065 Main Avenue, Suite 200

Durango, Colorado 81301

Written by

Angela WhitfieldSean Larmore

Kathy Croll

Sean LarmorePrincipal Investigator

July 2009

For Official Use Only:Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited

(43 CFR 7.18)

State Permit No. 2009-50ERO Project #4483

ERO Project #4483


2/26

ABSTRACT

ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) performed an additional Class III intensive

cultural resource inventory for the Energy Fuels Resources (EFR) Pion Ridge Mill

Project. The area of potential effect (APE) consists of one contiguous

The parcel is located in Paradox Valley,

The inventory resulted in documentation of four new archaeological sites and two

isolated finds. Most sites are open lithic scatters. Two sites include a historic component

one consists of a historic can scatter and the other is the remains of a homestead. All

but one site are recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP) due to their limited research potential beyond current documentation. A

portion of site 5MN9206 is recommended eligible for the NRHP based on the potential

for a buried thermal feature. Isolated finds, by definition, are not eligible for inclusion in

the NRHP.

A determination of no historic properties affected, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), is recommended for the project area,

contingent upon concurrence by the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

All four sites will be avoided by further ground disturbance, where feasible, regardless ofeligibility.

ERO Project #4483


3/26

CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Site Evaluation Criteria....................................................................................................... 3

Methods............................................................................................................................... 4

Inventory Results ................................................................................................................ 7Site Descriptions............................................................................................................7Isolated Finds...............................................................................................................12

Summary and Management Recommendations................................................................ 12

References Cited ............................................................................................................... 13

TABLESTable 1. Newly documented sites within the project area. .................................................7

Table 2. Attributes of projectile points documented during the inventory........................12

FIGURESFigure 1. Project Location...................................................................................................2

APPENDICESAppendix A: Cultural Resource Tables and Maps

Appendix B: Isolated Finds Tables and Maps

Appendix C: Artifact PhotographsAppendix D: OAHP Site and IF Forms

iERO Project #4483


4/26

ADDENDUM

CLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FORENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PION RIDGE MILL PROJECT

COOPER PROPERTY


JULY 2009

IntroductionERO Resources Corporation (ERO) performed a Class III intensive cultural resource

inventory for the Energy Fuels Resources Corporation (EFR) Pion Ridge Mill Project

(Pion Ridge project). The area of potential effect (APE) consists of one contiguous

The parcel is located in Paradox Valley,

The original scope of the Pion Ridge project included an 880-acre property proposed

for a uranium processing mill. In 2007, that 880-acre portion of the project was

inventoried by ERO (Whitfield et al. 2007). Mitigation work at two prehistoric

archaeological sites within the original project area is detailed under Sheptow and

Larmore (2009). A more detailed description of the original project and the results of the

original inventory can be found in the 2007 cultural resource inventory report (Whitfield

et al. 2007). The current inventory report pertains to an additional where EFR

intends to install ground water wells and construct access roads as part of the Pion

Ridge project. The additional are located on private property adjacent and

west of the original 880-acre project area. Regulatory review is being provided by the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).

The project is located in the N of the SE of Section 7, Township 46 North, Range

17 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian (PM). The parcel is located on the Davis Mesa

USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).

ERO Project #4483 1


5/26

500 0 500250 Meters

Addendum

Addtional Class III Resource Inventory for

Energy Fuels Resources Pinon Ridge Mill Project

Montrose County, Colorado

Prepared for: Energy FuelsFile: fig1.pdf

July 2009

T46N; R17W; Section 7

New Mexico Principal Meridian

USGS Bull Canyon and Davis Mesa, Colorado 7.5' Quadrangles

Figure 1.

Project Location

1:24,000


6/26

ADDENDUMCLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR

ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PION RIDGE MILL PROJECTCOOPER PROPERTY


ERO Project #4483 3

Site Evaluation CriteriaSites investigated during this inventory were evaluated for eligibility to the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NRHP significance criteria are codified under 36

CFR 60.4 and are specified below.

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity

of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to thebroad patterns of our history; or

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, orthat represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lackindividual distinction; or

d) that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory.

Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures; property owned by

religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been removed

from their original location; reconstructed historic buildings; properties that are primarily

commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the last

50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such

properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria, or if

they fall within the following categories:

a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artisticdistinction or historical importance; or

b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significantprimarily for its architecture, or which is the surviving structure most importantlyassociated with a historic person or event; or

c) a birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding importance if there isno other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or


7/26


8/26




ERO Project #4483 5

A pedestrian survey was conducted by walking transects spaced 15 to 20 meters

apart. Once artifacts were located, the survey was halted and systematic inspection of the

area was conducted by pinflagging all observed artifacts and features. Artifact

concentrations were identified at the discretion of the crew chief based on artifact

distribution. Two site overviews and all features and diagnostic artifacts were digitally

photographed. A site datum, diagnostic artifacts, and site and artifact boundaries were

documented using a submeter Trimble GeoXT Explorer Global Positioning System

(GPS) unit. No permanent datum was established.

A cultural resource is defined as the locus of previous human activity at which the

preponderance of evidence suggests one-time diagnostically interpretable use, repeateduse over time, or multiple classes of activities. Professional judgment is used to

distinguish between purposeful activity and isolated occurrences of artifacts that are often

attributable to background noise. Isolated thermal features, rock art panels, and

isolated human burials are considered archaeological sites. Surface lithic scatters that

occur in a condensed area and comprise a single raw material may be attributable to a

single reduction episode that is not considered representative of purposeful activity or

patterned behavior sufficient to be documented as a site. However, due to the paucity of

documented sites in Paradox Valley, these types of activity loci were documented as

archaeological sites. Project localities with surface lithic raw material may produce a

preponderance of such occurrences; however, this is not the case in Paradox Valley

where the surface is blanketed with eolian deposits. There is no precise threshold of

lithic flakes required to advance an isolated occurrence of lithic reduction to that of an

archaeological site, but a standard of 10 to 15 pieces of debitage is often used as an

arbitrary threshold. An evaluation of raw material, flake density, and spatial distribution

is required to make an informed decision of isolated reduction episodes. Lithic scatters

with multiple raw materials and artifact classes are generally considered archaeological

sites. The presence of ground stone or features in association with flaked lithic material

qualifies as a camp location. A ceramic scatter representative of a single vessel is also

considered an isolated find.


9/26




ERO Project #4483 6

Historic sites are evaluated using the same criteria outlined above. Isolated historic

artifacts are generally recorded as isolates unless associated with purposeful activity such

as habitation, ranching or agricultural, or mining complexes. Historic dumps are

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A single artifact class such as sanitary cans is

recorded as an isolated occurrence; conversely, dumps that exhibit many artifact classes

and date prior to the 20th century are documented as archaeological sites. Linear features

such as water conveyance systems, transmission lines, and roads are documented as sites.

An isolated fence line is generally not recorded as a site unless it demarcates a boundary

significant to area history. An isolated mine adit with no associated artifacts or features

is also recorded as an isolate.Prehistoric artifact descriptions use the following terminology in this report: Ground

stone descriptions follow Adams (2002); biface stages are defined according to

width/thickness ratios (Callahan 1979) and are illustrated and discussed in Andrefsky

(1998); flake terminology follows the triple cortex typology of primary, secondary, and

tertiary (Andrefsky 1998), which correspond to the amount of cortex present on the flake.

A primary flakes exterior surface is covered in cortex over 50% of its surface; secondary

flakes have less than 50% cortex; and tertiary flakes exhibit no cortex. Although the

flaws in this method of flake typology are inherent (Andrefsky 1998), it does characterize

a sites surface flake assemblage in an efficient manner while providing useful data.

Projectile point analysis follows procedures adopted by Larmore (2002), which relies

on metric attributes of the haft and morphological attributes that emphasize existing

condition and cross-section; typological assessment is dependent upon project location,

but general typologies consulted include: Buckles (1986), Frison (1991), Holmer (1978,

1986), Irwin-Williams (1973), Pitblado (1999), and Thomas (1981). Most typologies in

the region borrow heavily from these sources. Grey literature sources are consulted when

significant previous investigations have occurred in the area. Six hafted bifaces were

collected during the course of the inventory and will be returned to EFR following

analysis.


10/26




ERO Project #4483 7

Inventory ResultsFour new sites and two isolated finds were documented during the additional

inventory of the Pion Ridge project (Table 1). Six hafted bifaces were collected duringinventory and subject to laboratory analysis, the results of which are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Newly documented sites within the project area.Smithsonian

NumberTemporary

Site Number Site Type Temporal PeriodNRHP

Eligibility

5MN9206 PI-01 Open Lithic Scatter Middle Archaic FieldEligible

5MN9207 PI-02 Open Lithic Scatter UnknownPrehistoric/PossibleLate Paleoindian

Field NotEligible

5MN9208 PI-03 Open LithicScatter/Historic CanScatter

Unknown Prehistoric;Historic

Field NotEligible

5MN9209 PI-05 Open Lithic Scatter/Historic Homestead

Middle Archaic toEarly Formative;Historic

Field NotEligible

Site Descriptions

Site Number: 5MN9206

Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter

Site Description: The site is located

. Scattered pinyon-juniper is the dominant vegetation with typical Upper

Sonoran understory. The elevation is 5,475 feet (1,669 meters) above sea level (asl).

Material culture includes flaked lithic debitage derived primarily from locally

available Dakota quartzite and silicified sediment with some chert from an unknownsource. Flakes are diffusely scattered over a large area and concentrated in two general

areas. Burnt fragmented bone occurs as Field Specimen (FS) 2 in an area of small

tertiary retouched flakes. Two artifact concentrations were identified as AC 1 and AC 2.

AC 1 contains 20 to 30 flakes primarily of orthoquartzite, and AC 2 consists of about 30


11/26




ERO Project #4483 8

flakes and burnt bone fragments that probably represent an activity area. The site

represents a short-term occupation with primary activities including stone tool

manufacture and retooling. One diagnostic Duncan (McKean Complex) projectile point

(FS 1) was located indicating a Middle Archaic occupation (3000 to 1000 B.C.) at the site

(Larmore 2002).

Management Recommendation: Avoid and protect. This site is recommended

eligible for the NRHP. Although previous geomorphological studies (summarized in

Whitfield et al. 2007) have demonstrated that sites on this landform are entirely surficial

or near surface manifestations, the presence of fragmented burnt bone suggests the

potential for a buried thermal feature and activity detritus. As such, AC 2 is consideredthe contributing portion of the site and the area peripheral to this concentration is

recommended as noncontributing to the sites overall NRHP eligibility.


Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter


. Artifacts are located

Dominant vegetation includes

pinyon-juniper with rabbitbrush, snakeweed, and bunch grasses. The elevation is 5,518

feet (1,682 meters) asl.

The site appears to be a limited activity area for lithic reduction, stone tool

manufacture, and general retooling. Tools include discarded biface fragments (Stages 3-

5) all of different raw material (FS 1-FS 4), a hammerstone (FS 5), a mano (FS 6), and an

exhausted core (FS 7). One possible Late Paleoindian biface midsection (FS 8) was also

identified; flaking is random but well executed, the cross section is bi-convex/diamond-

shaped, and the raw material is a high quality dendritic chalcedony. The debitage is light

overall and limited to less than 20 flakes of primarily Dakota orthoquartzite. The high

tool to flake ratio, coupled with FS 8, suggests the potential for a Late Paleoindian period

occupation.


12/26




ERO Project #4483 9

Management Recommendation: No further work. ERO recommends the site not

eligible for the NRHP. Given the site location in an area of colluvial sediments and near

surface fan deposits, there is little potential for significant buried cultural deposits.

Current documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.


Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter/Historic Can Scatter


. Artifacts are located

Dominant vegetation includes

pinyon-juniper with rabbitbrush, snakeweed, and bunch grasses. The elevation is 5,531feet (1,686 meters) asl. The ridge slopes 5 to 7 degrees to the northeast.

The site appears to be a limited activity area for lithic reduction, stone tool

manufacture, and retooling. Tools include three biface fragments of Dakota

orthoquartzite (FS 4, FS 7, and FS 8); an expedient projectile point/hafted knife

manufactured from a retouched flake (FS 1); two cores (FS 2 and FS 6); a sandstone one-

handed mano (FS 3); a petrified wood retouched flake (FS 5); and a serrated projectile

point tip (FS 9). The debitage is light overall and limited to less than 20 flakes of Dakota

quartzite, quartzite, variegated chert, and chalcedony. A stacked rock wall of unshaped

sandstone (F 5) is located along the western edge of the drainage downslope of the main

artifact concentration and appears to have been a hunting blind, and is L-shaped and

measures about 2 meters long. No diagnostic artifacts were present to provide temporal or

cultural-historical interpretation.

The historic component is limited to a scatter of about 25 hole-in-cap and sanitary

cans near the southern or upslope portion of the site and is probably related to the

homestead documented as 5MN9209. General Land Office (GLO) records indicate the

north half of the southeast quarter of Section 7 was purchased on July 16, 1913 by James

M. Belisle. It remains unknown whether this person was responsible for the historic

cultural manifestations, but they may be associated.


13/26




ERO Project #4483 10

Management Recommendation: No further work. ERO recommends the site not

eligible for the NRHP. Given the site location in an area of colluvial sediments and near

surface bedrock, there is little potential for significant buried cultural deposits. Current

documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.


Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter/Historic Homestead

Site Description: The prehistoric component of the site consists of cultural material

scattered over a large area

Artifacts occur primarily

Vegetation in thearea is pinyon-juniper with typical Upper Sonoran understory. The elevation is 5,498

feet (1,676 m) asl.

Flaked lithic debitage is dominated by secondary flakes of Dakota orthoquartzite

locally available in the area. Raw material also includes presumably local variegated

chert and silicified sediment derived from the Morrison, Dakota, and Burro Canyon

formations that outcrop in the general area. Tools include two retouched flakes (FS 1 and

FS 20); seven manos (FS 2-6, 16, and 17); six metates or metate fragments (FS 7, 8, 10,

11, 18, and 19); a retouched flake/knife (FS 9); a Gatecliff Contracting Stem (Thomas

1981) projectile point (FS 12); a translucent chert Rosegate (Holmer 1986) projectile

point (FS 13); a Stage 3-4 biface fragment (FS 14); and a Dakota orthoquartzite

nondiagnostic biface haft (FS 15). Five of the manos (FS 2-6) comprise a cache (F 4) and

one of the metates was incorporated into the wall of a historic feature (F 3).

The Gatecliff Contracting Stem point and Rosegate projectile point indicate

occupation during the Middle to Late Archaic and early Formative periods, respectively.

The site represents short-term occupation primarily for lithic reduction and stone tool

manufacture and vegetal resource (pinyon nut?) processing. Each interfluvial ridge

probably represents an activity loci or discrete occupation. It is problematic to define

concentrations due to significant colluvial slopewash, artifact redeposition, and the low

intensity distribution of artifacts.


14/26





The historic component of the site consists of two structures located on an interfluvial

ridge of a larger alluvial fan; a third feature is located on the toe slope of the valley floor.

Feature 1 (F 1) is a 10 x 5 foot dugout cellar excavated into the east side of the

interfluvial ridge. F 1 was constructed of axe-cut juniper posts, much of which is still

intact except for the material that once covered the roof. F 2 is a 20 x 30 foot milled

lumber habitation structure that has largely been salvaged of material. Lumber detritus

has been mounded in the middle of the feature with smaller debris cached as a packrat

midden. The outline and distribution of lumber provides a fairly distinct structural shape.

The pad for the structure was excavated out of the slope in the southwest and southern

edge, and mounded and leveled near the northeast corner for the platform. The refusedump is located east of F 1 and FS 2, and consists of a medium density of solder dot cans

(EST 556); aqua, purple, clear, and pane glass; and porcelain fragments. Feature 3 (~8

foot x 13 foot) appears to be an extramural structure located east of the main historic site

area. Feature 3 is U-shaped, opens to the west, and consists of a single course of

unshaped local sandstone rock. No artifacts were located in association. General Land

Office (GLO) records indicate the portion of Section 7 in which the homestead is located

was purchased on July 16, 1913 by James M. Belisle. It remains unknown whether this

person was responsible for the historic cultural manifestations. The artifact assemblage,

in conjunction with the GLO records, indicates occupation of the site during the late 19th

to early 20th centuries.

The overall quantity and density of cultural materials indicates relatively short-term

occupation by a small family. The artifact type indicates that females and small children

were not primary constituents of the site. The site has limited archaeological potential;

no privy was located and the habitation structure has no cellar. The landform

(interfluvial fan deposits) is not conducive for buried deposits.Management Recommendation: No further work. ERO recommends the site not

eligible for the NRHP. Subsurface testing at adjacent sites along the same landform

indicates that buried cultural deposits are unlikely. No prehistoric features were located


15/26





to provide additional information. Current documentation exhausts the research potential

of the site.

Table 2. Attributes of projectile points documented during the inventory.Dimensions (mm)

Smith-sonian No.

FSNo.

Max.Length

Max.Width

Max.Thick-

ness

BaseWidth

NeckWidth

HaftLength

NotchDepth

Material Type

5MN9206 1 25.6 15.9 4.2 9.5 9 7.5 .7 Pink chert Duncan

5MN9207 8 17.2 19.8 5.5 Dendriticchalcedony

Paleoindian?

5MN9208 1 29.5 21.3 3.8 10.5 9.3 6.5 unknown Haftedretouched

flake

5MN9209 12 41.1 22.5 6.8 12 Dakotaorthoquartzite

GatecliffContracting

5MN9209 13 26.2 20.5 5.4 11 8.6 11.5 Petrified wood Rosegate

5MN9209 15 11.4 21.9 3.8 12 Dakotaorthoquartzite

unknown

Isolated Finds

Two isolated finds (IF) were recorded during the inventory. Isolated find 5MN9210

consists of 14 primary and secondary flakes of Dakota orthoquartzite that collectively

represent one reduction event; flakes have been redistributed downslope due to colluvial

slope wash. Isolated find 5MN9211 is an isolated hunting blind located on the west sideof an entrenched ephemeral drainage. Flood events have pushed large boulders to the

edges of the drainage. A small (~1 meter diameter) circular hunting blind was

constructed by removing boulders from the interior. No artifacts were found in

association.

Summary and Management RecommendationsThe additional cultural resource inventory related to EFRs Pion Ridge project

resulted in the documentation of four new archaeological sites and two isolated finds. Allbut three sites are recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP due to their limited

research potential beyond current documentation. Previous geomorphological studies

and site testing along the valley slope ecotone indicated that cultural resources located in

this area are entirely surficial and of mixed material deposits due to episodic periods of

eolian and colluvial aggradation and deflation (Whitfield et al. 2007). Numerous


16/26





entrenched drainages now dissect the valley slope ecotone and have undoubtedly become

entrenched over the last 125 years due to grazing and timber harvesting. Prior to

entrenchment, these drainages would have redeposited cultural material from overbank

flooding, particularly near the valley floor terminus of these drainages. Outwash

boulders are clearly discernible as terminal deposits on the valley floor. Conversely, it

appears the interfluvial ridges between the upper (southern) portions of the entrenched

drainages have remained largely stable. However, sediment deposits on these ridges are

extremely shallow, and are composed of unconsolidated large clast colluvium; the

cultural material is entirely surficial or near surface in this context. Therefore, with the

exception of AC 2 of site 5MN9206, all cultural resources are recommended not eligiblefor the NRHP. Ground disturbance associated with installing ground water wells and

access roads will be designed to avoid cultural resources, where feasible. Isolated finds,

by definition, are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

A determination of no historic properties affected, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the

NHPA, is recommended for the project area, contingent upon avoidance of all significant

cultural resources.

References CitedAdams, Jenny L.

2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Andrefsky, William, Jr.1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in

Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, NY.

Buckles, William G.1986 Old Dallas Historical Archaeological Program, Dallas Creek Project. United

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Salt Lake City, UT.

Callahan, Errett1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manualfor Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America7:1-180.

Frison, George C.1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2ndEdition. Academic Press, NY.


17/26





Holmer, Richard N.1978 A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great

Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University

of Utah, Salt Lake City.1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. InAnthropology of theDesert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Edited by C.J. Condie andD.D. Fowler, pp. 89-115. University of Utah Anthropology Papers, No. 110.Salt Lake City.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in

Anthropology 5:1, Eastern New Mexico University.

Larmore, Sean2002 McKean Complex Projectile Point Variability: Interaction and Mobility During

the Middle Archaic. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology,

University of Denver.Pitblado, Bonnie L.

1999 Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: ProjectilePoints and Land Use in the High Country. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Arizona.

Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin .

Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Sheptow, Danielle and Sean Larmore2009 Addendum: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluative Testing Results

for Energy Fuels Resources Pinon Mill Development Project, Montrose County,

Colorado Archaeological Treatment of Sites 5MN8269 and 5MN8270.Prepared for and submitted to Energy Fuels Resources, Lakewood, Colorado.ERO Resources Corporation, Durango, CO.

Thomas, David H.1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of

California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43.

Whitfield, Angela, Sean Larmore, and Kathy Croll2007 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluative Testing Results for Energy

Fuels Resources Pinon Mill Development, Montrose County, Colorado.Prepared for and submitted to Energy Fuels Resources, Lakewood, Colorado.ERO Resources Corporation, Durango, CO.


18/26

Appendix A:Cultural Resource Tables and Maps

For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18)

ERO Project #4483


19/26

Table A-1. Site locations and eligibility.Smithsonian

NumberSite Type Temporal Period

NRHPEligibility

UTM Coordinates (NAD 83)Zone 12

5MN9206 Open LithicScatter

Middle Archaic FieldEligible

5MN9207 Open LithicScatter UnknownPrehistoric/PossibleLate Paleoindian

Field NotEligible

5MN9208 Open LithicScatter/HistoricCan Scatter

UnknownPrehistoric/Historic

Field NotEligible

5MN9209 Open LithicScatter/Homestead

Middle to LateArchaic/Late Archaicto Early Formative/Historic

Field NotEligible

ERO Project #4483


20/26

500 0 500250 Meters




Prepared for: Energy FuelsFile: figa1.pdf

July 2009




Site Locations

1:24,000

[ Cactus

Site Boundary

2009 Project Area


21/26

Appendix B:Isolated Finds Tables and Maps


ERO Project #4483


22/26

Table B-1. Isolated occurrences located within the project area.Smithsonian

NumberTemp

NumberDescription

UTM Coordinates (NAD 83)Zone 12

5MN9210 PI-04 14 primary and secondary Dakota orthoquartziteflakes

5MN9211 PI-06 Isolated hunting blind located on the west sideof an entrenched ephemeral drainage. A small(~1 m) diameter circular hunting blind wasconstructed by removing boulders from theinterior. No artifacts were found in association.

ERO Project #4483


23/26

500 0 500250 Meters




Prepared for: Energy FuelsFile: figb1.pdf

July 2009




Figure B1.

Isolated Find Locations

1:24,000

h Isolated Find

2009 Project Area


24/26

Appendix C:Artifact Photographs


ERO Project #4483


25/26

5MN9206. FS1, Duncan

projectile point

5MN9207. FS8, Possible Late

Paleoindian biface midsection

5MN9209. FS12, Gatecliff

projectile point5MN9208. FS1,

expedient point/hafted

knife

5MN9209. FS13, Rosegate

projectile point

5MN9209. FS15, low side-

notched projectile point

fragment


26/26

Appendix D:OAHP Site and IF Forms


pinon ridge mill - redacted cultural resources report (part 2) cooper property

Documents