pinon ridge mill - redacted cultural resources report project area

7/31/2019 Pinon Ridge Mill - Redacted Cultural Resources Report Project Area

1/57

CLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR

ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTMONTROSE COUNTY,COLORADO

Prepared for

Kleinfelder

8300 Jefferson NE, Suite BAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87113

Prepared by

ERO Resources Corporation

1075 Main Avenue, Suite 222

Durango, Colorado 81301

Written by

Angela WhitfieldSean Larmore

Kathy Croll

Sean Larmore

Principal Investigator

December 2007

For Official Use Only:

Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited

(43 CFR 7.18)

ERO Project #3987


2/57

ABSTRACT

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

inventory and evaluative testing for the Energy Fuels Resources Pinon Mill Development

project. The development consists of 880 acres located along State Highway 90 in

Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado. The legal description is Township 46

North, Range 17 West, in the SW of Section 5, all of Section 8, and the N of the NW

; N of the NE ; and the SE of the NW of Section 17. The parcel is located on

the Bull Canyon and Davis Mesa USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangles.

The cultural resource inventory resulted in documentation of 20 new archaeological

sites and 14 isolated finds. The sites consisted of 16 prehistoric open artifact scatters, one

sheltered artifact scatter, and three historic habitation sites. Of the 20 sites documented,

four are recommended field eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) and 16 are recommended field not eligible. Isolated finds, by definition, are not

eligible for listing on the NRHP. Controlled collection took place at eight sites, and six

archaeological sites were trenched in order to evaluate their potential for subsurface

cultural deposits.

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 the avoidance of all sites recommended field eligible and upon

concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on all field not eligible

site recommendations. Field eligible cultural resources are 5MN8269, 5MN8270,

5MN8284, and 5MN8286. At this time, project development will not affect these sites.

ERO Project #3987


3/57

CONTENTS

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

Legal Description of the Project Area ................................................................................ 1

Cultural Overview............................................................................................................... 6

Previous Investigations ..................................................................................................... 11

Site Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................... 12

Methods............................................................................................................................. 14

Inventory Results .............................................................................................................. 17

Site Descriptions ..........................................................................................................19

Isolated Finds...............................................................................................................38

Project Archaeological Assessment.................................................................................. 39

Management Recommendations....................................................................................... 40

References Cited ............................................................................................................... 42

FIGURESFigure 1. Project location....................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Project overview photos. .....................................................................................5

Figure 3. Site 5MN8269, Trench 3 west-facing profile....................................................22

TABLES

Table 1. Previous surveys within mile of the project area............................................12Table 2. Newly documented sites within the project area. ...............................................18

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cultural Resource Tables and Maps

Appendix B: Isolated Finds Tables and Maps

Appendix C: Report Figures

Appendix D: OAHP Site and IF Forms

Appendix E: Evaluative Testing Photos

ip:\3900 projects\3987 energy fuels pinon mill\final print\final report.doc

ERO Project #3987


4/57

CLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR

ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

MONTROSE COUNTY,COLORADO

DECEMBER 2007

IntroductionOn behalf of Kleinfelder, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) performed a Class III

intensive cultural resource inventory for Energy Fuels Resources Pinon Mill

Development project. The project consists of one contiguous parcel totaling 880 acres.

The parcel is located in Paradox Valley, along the northeastern edge of Davis Mesa and is

bisected by Highway 90 in Montrose County, Colorado (project area).

Energy Fuels Resources intends to build a new uranium mill in Paradox Valley. This

facility is proposed to include an evaporation pond area (80 acres), a tailings area (60

acres), and the mill. Development is to occur primarily in the open sagebrush area of

Paradox Valley. Fill may be obtained from the alluvial fans below Davis Mesa.

Regulatory review will be provided by the State of Colorado per a 1968 agreement with

the Atomic Energy Commission (amended 1982) on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Preliminary design would impact nine archaeological sites (5MN8271, 5MN8272,

5MN8273, 5MN8274, 5MN8276, 5MN8277, 5MN8278, 5MN8281, and 5MN8283). All

of these sites are located in planned disturbance areas. An additional four sites

(5MN8275, 5MN8279, 5MN8280, and 5MN8282) may be impacted in the future

depending on project development. Four of the nine sites located in planned disturbance

areas were trenched to evaluate their potential for subsurface cultural deposits; all were

negative. One additional site (5MN8276) was collected to exhaust its data potential.

Baseline documentation exhausted the research potential of the remaining sites located in

planned disturbance areas.

Legal Description of the Project AreaThe project area is located within Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado,

bisected by Highway 90 and west of Naturita, Colorado. The legal description is

ERO Project #3987 1


5/57

CLASS IIICULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR



ERO Project #3987 2

Township 46 North, Range 17 West, in the SW of Section 5, all of Section 8, and the N

of the NW ; N of the NE ; and the SE of the NW of Section 17, New

Mexico Prime Meridian. The project is located on the Bull Canyon and Davis Mesa

USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangles.

Affected Environment

The project area is on the Colorado Plateau in western Colorado and is southwest of

the Uncompahgre Plateau. Elevation within the project area ranges from 5,440 to 5,940

feet above sea level (asl). More specifically, most of the project area is located on the

floor and along the southern edge of Paradox Valley between Sawtooth Ridge to the

north and Davis Mesa to the south (Figure 1). The Dolores River crosses Paradox Valley

approximately 7.5 miles west-northwest of the project area. East Paradox Creek, a

tributary of the Dolores River, flows along the northern edge of Paradox Valley, with

ephemeral drainages extending south into the project area.

The climate of this region is primarily semi-desert with precipitation increasing with

elevation and temperature decreasing with elevation. Precipitation is typically highest in

the winter months and lowest in June. Average temperatures range from an average low

of 30F in January to a high of 80F in July (Reed and Metcalf 1999).

Vegetation communities in this region consist of semi-desert shrublands and pinyon-

juniper woodlands. The dominant community over most of the project area is semi-

desert shrublands, which is found at lower elevations (typically below 6,000 to 7,000 feet

asl) across the Colorado Plateau. Plant species in this community include greasewood,

four-winged saltbush, blackbrush, shadscale, and big sagebrush. Animals associated with

shrubland communities include coyotes, desert cottontail and black-tailed jackrabbits,

badgers, prairie dogs, mule deer, and pronghorn (Mutel and Emerick 1992; Paulson and

Baker 2006).


6/57

500 0 500250 Meters

Pinon Mill Cultural Resources Survey Report

Montrose County, Colorado

Prepared for: Kleinfelder

File: 3987fig1.pdfNovember 2007

T46N; R17W; Sections 5, 8 and 17

New Mexico Prime Meridian

USGS Bull Canyon and Davis Mesa, Colorado 7.5' Quadrangles

Figure 1.Project Location

1:24,000


7/57




ERO Project #3987 4

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are found at elevations from 4,000 to 9,000 feet asl.

Dominant species within this community are pinyon pine, juniper, sagebrush, mountain

mahogany, and rabbitbrush. Animal species that depend on this habitat include mule

deer, elk, mountain lions, bobcats, ringtails, coyotes, badgers, and long-tailed weasels

(Mutel and Emerick 1992).

Geologically, the project area is covered by pervasive eolian deposits. The edges of

Paradox Valley are underlain by Hermosa formation Arkosic sandstone, conglomerate,

shale, and limestone. The steep walls of Paradox Valley are comprised of Cretaceous

(Dakota sandstone) and Jurassic formations, including (from top to bottom) the Morrison,

Summerville, Entrada, Kayenta, and Wingate formations (see Figure 2). The upper

Dakota and Morrison formations are known to produce flaked lithic raw material,

including fine-grained orthoquartzite and variegated chert nodules (Black 2000).

Sediment deposition is moderately deep in the floor of Paradox Valley due to

Quaternary-age eolian deposits that include dune sand, silt, and Peoria loess (Tweto

1979). Paradox Valley is a collapsed salt anticline, formed by the extremely slow

movement of salt and gypsum originating from Pennsylvanian age rocks pushing against

overlying rock layers. Paradox Valley is one of three such anticlines in southwest

Colorado, each one being a long fold with a northwest-southeast trend determined by the

position of faults in Precambrian rock (Chronic 1986).

Geotechnical coring and evaluative trenching indicates that Paradox Valleys eolian

deposits have repeatedly experienced episodes of aggradation and degradation. Deflation

of the eolian deposits has effectively truncated the Holocene sediments into less than 50

cmof deposits that appear to date prior to 5,000 years before present (B.P.). Underlying

the early to middle Holocene deposits is a saturated calcium carbonate (CaCO3) soil

horizon of Pleistocene age. Evaluative trenching was terminated at this horizon at depths

of about 50 to 60 centimeters below ground surface (cm bgs).


8/57




ERO Project #3987 5

Figure 2. Project overview photos.

Project area overview of the Paradox Valley floor.

Project area overview to the north from near the southern

project boundary.


9/57




ERO Project #3987 6

Cultural OverviewThe temporal framework for the northern Colorado River Basin is divided into five

major prehistoric and historic stages: Paleoindian (13400 B.P. to 7500 B.P.), Archaic (ca.

7500 B.P. to 2000 B.P.), Formative (2400 B.P. to 700 B.P.), Protohistoric (700 B.P. to

200 B.P.), and Historic (200 B.P. to 50 B.P.). All ages are presented as radiocarbon years

before present (B.P.). The cultural context provided below is intended to provide the

reader with a basic overview of the culture history. The reader should refer to Colorado

Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin (Reed and Metcalf 1999)

for a complete overview. The cultural overlap with southwest Colorado also warrants a

review ofColorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin (Lipe

et al. 1999).

The Paleoindian period is primarily divided into four traditions distinguished by four

projectile point styles and, to a lesser degree, changes in mobility and subsistence

patterns. The four traditions are Clovis (13400 B.P. to 12500 B.P.), Goshen (13000 B.P.

to 12700 B.P.), Folsom (12800 B.P. to 11500 B.P.), and Foothill-Mountain (11500 B.P.

to 7500 B.P.). The styles include partially fluted lanceolate projectile points (Clovis) to

fully fluted, lanceolate projectile points (Folsom). Paleoindian hunter-gatherers were

highly mobile, leaving few cultural imprints on the landscape. Subsistence strategies

focused on big game, which included now extinct megafauna such as mammoth and

Bison antiquus. Evidence for Paleoindian use of the project area is limited (Pitblado

1998 - although a Late Paleoindian projectile point was recovered during the current

project inventory). Nearly all of the dated Paleoindian components in Colorado are found

in the northern Colorado River Basin near the headwaters of the Colorado River near

Middle Park and the Indian Peaks (Pitblado 1999). Buckles illustrates several

Paleoindian types from his work on the Uncompahgre Plateau including Plainview, CodyComplex, Meserve-Dalton, Western Stemmed, and Foothills-Mountain (Buckles 1971:

Figure 4). None of these points were recovered in Paleoindian contexts however. Early

surveys of the La Sal Mountains, clearly visible west of the project area, also produced

minimal evidence for Paleoindian occupation (Hunt 1953; Hunt and Tanner 1960). A

more recent survey also produced no evidence of occupation for this time period


10/57




ERO Project #3987 7

(Larmore et al. 2005). Based on the available data, Paleoindian period sites are not

expected in the project area.

The Archaic Stage (7500 B.P. to 2000 B.P.) is a temporally extensive period markedby broad spectrum hunting and gathering. Aside from a decreased emphasis on large

game and an increased emphasis toward gathering and processing vegetal food, as

evidenced by ground stone in the archaeological record, settlement strategies appear to

have remained similar to that of the late Paleoindian period when settling in to the local

landscape took place. Changes in lithic technology include a decrease in size and an

increase in the diversity of projectile point styles to large corner and side-notched types.

Sites such as Yarmony demonstrate the use of semisubterranean architecture (Metcalf

and Black 1991).

Reed and Metcalf (1999) divided the Archaic Stage into four periods: Pioneer (8350

B.P. to 6450 B.P.), Settled (6450 B.P. to 4450 B.P.), Transitional (4450 B.P. to 2950

B.P.), and Terminal (2950 B.P. to 1950 B.P.). The other prominent chronology was

developed by Buckles (1971) from work conducted under the auspices of the Ute

Prehistory project on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Although dated, Buckles work

demonstrated nearly continuous occupation of the plateau and indicates in situ cultural

development. Similarities with the Oshara tradition of northern New Mexico (Irwin-

Williams 1973) are also evident, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the northern

Colorado River Basin developed largely independent of this and other large-scale

chronologies, including those developed for the Northwest Plains (Frison 1991), the

western Great Plains of Colorado (Gilmore et al. 1999), and the northern Colorado

Plateau (Schroedl 1976). However, the similarity in projectile point styles over great

expanses, especially those of the Oshara tradition, indicates the extensive area Archaic

people traveled over a lifetime and across generations. Archaeologists have tended to

underestimate the lifetime range of hunter-gatherer bands (cf. Vierra 1994). In turn, this

perpetuates the number of projectile point types defined across the landscape.

Archaic period occupation of the project area is best evidenced through diagnostic

projectile point types. These types include large side-notched types such as Hawken


11/57




ERO Project #3987 8

(Frison 1991) and Pahaska (Husted and Edgar 2002) types of the Early Archaic; Rocker,

Sudden, and Mallory side-notched types of the Middle Archaic (Holmer 1986); and the

large corner-notched types that include the Elko series (Holmer 1986; Thomas 1981) of

the Great Basin and the En Medio type of the northern Southwest (Irwin-Williams 1973).

In Colorado, large corner-notched projectile points generally remain unnamed and are

simply referred to as Late Archaic. Basketmaker II (400 B.C. A.D. 400) projectile

points of the Southwest may be indistinguishable from what is referred to as Late Archaic

further north (Morris and Burgh 1954; Smiley 1995) and, without context, distinguishing

between these two cultural affiliations may be impossible (Charles and Cole 2003).

The Formative era (2400 B.P. to 700 B.P.) is a period when horticulture became a

major subsistence focus in western Colorado. The Fremont practiced horticulture in far

northwest Colorado and Utah. Evidence of Anasazi use extends north from southwest

Colorado, but was of limited intensity and is restricted to the area associated with the

Dolores River drainage. The Formative era saw the introduction of the bow and arrow

and distinctive ceramic traditions. Structures generally became more permanent and rock

art were major ideological elements. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is still recognized in

the archaeological record for this period, and may represent a cultural tradition separate

from the Fremont and Anasazi (Reed and Metcalf 1999).

For western Colorado, four traditions have been defined: Fremont, Anasazi, Gateway,

and Aspen. In southwest Colorado, the Anasazi left an indelible footprint on the

landscape. The Fremont includes a number of variants, including the Uinta, San Rafael,

Great Salt Lake, Sevier, and Parowan. Others have reduced this number to three variants:

Fremont, Sevier, and Uinta Basin (Madsen 1979). Fremont occupation of northeast

Colorado occurs significantly in three areas: western Montrose County, Glade Park, and

the Douglas Creek/Dinosaur National Monument area (Reed and Metcalf 1999). These

areas are considerably north of the current project area. Upland use of areas such as the

Uncompahgre Plateau and the La Sal Mountains undoubtedly occurred and may be

recognized by projectile point styles such as Uinta side-notched (Holmer and Weder

1980) and Rosegate corner-notched (Thomas 1981), although these styles occur


12/57




ERO Project #3987 9

ubiquitously throughout the Formative period and the general morphological types were

widely adopted by other cultures. Fremont structures include free-standing masonry

roomblocks and semi-subterranean pithouses.

Evidence for the Anasazi tradition north of the Dolores River has been limited. As

noted by Reed and Metcalf (1999), the evidence is limited to projectile point styles

attributable to the Basketmaker II period, rock art that Cole (1990) attributes to the San

Juan and Uncompahgre complex, and several architectural sites in west-central Colorado.

The combined evidence, however, does not suggest a credible Anasazi occupation of the

valleys southwest of the Uncompahgre Plateau (Reed and Metcalf 1999). Recent work in

Paradox Valley attempted to shed light on the cultural affiliation of stone architectural

sites originally documented more than 70 years ago. A reconnaissance survey of nine

previously recorded sites and one newly recorded site, consisting of stone architectural

and rock art sites, did not conclusively determine the cultural affiliation of these sites

(McMahon and Bedingfield 2001). More recently, a reevaluation of the ceramics

recovered from Weimer Ranch was conducted (Gruebel et al. 2006) in an attempt to

resolve whether the site was affiliated with the Northern San Juan Anasazi, Fremont, or

Gateway tradition. Analysis confirmed that much of the ceramic assemblage was indeed

Northern San Juan Basin Anasazi from a typological perspective, but McMahon (2007)

argues in a recent paper that the absence of kivas and local production of ceramics with

Puebloan traits suggests that the ceramics were a product of cultural transmission from

the south and do not necessarily imply direct Anasazi affiliation. Masonry architecture in

Paradox Valley also does not conform to typical Anasazi form. It remains to be

determined whether sites with masonry architecture and Puebloan ceramics are directly

affiliated with the Anasazi or represent Fremont or Gateway manifestations.

The ambiguity of assigning archaeological sites to either Fremont or Anasazi

traditions (e.g., masonry, Anasazi pottery, occasional corn, and small corner-notched

projectile points on sites in northeastern Colorado and west-central Colorado) has not

been lost on investigators. In response, Reed (1997) developed the Gateway tradition

(2400 B.P. to 800 B.P.) as a separate cultural entity distinctive from either Fremont or


13/57




ERO Project #3987 10

Anasazi traditions. Still far from accepted, the Gateway tradition is characterized by

limited reliance on horticulture, small corner-notched projectile points such as the

Rosegate series, the acquisition of ceramics from both the Fremont and Anasazi and the

lack of ceramic production on their own, masonry structures and possible pithouses

occupied over relatively short duration, storage features, and rock art with both Anasazi

and Fremont influence. The definition of the Aspen tradition is far less robust, but was

developed in response to the many archaeological sites not assignable to any of the three

aforementioned traditions. Reed and Metcalf (1999) do not list any cultural traits specific

to the tradition other than to state that it is the taxonomic equivalent to the Gateway and

Fremont traditionsand as sort of parallel construct to the Uinta phase of the Wyoming

Basin, with a near identical time span of 2400 B.P. to 700 B.P. The use of projectile

points to assign cultural affiliation is tenuous at best.

The Protohistoric stage (700 B.P. to 200 B.P.) begins with the end of horticultural

subsistence practices of the Formative Era and ends with the expulsion of the various Ute

bands to reservations. The primary group to occupy the northern Colorado River Basin

was the Numic-speaking Ute. Before contact with the Spanish in the early 1600s, the Ute

were mobile hunters and gatherers who constructed wickiups for shelter, produced a

particular brown ware ceramic tradition (Uncompahgre brown-ware), and crafted small

side-notched (Desert) and un-notched triangular (Cottonwood) projectile points (Buckles

1971; Reed and Metcalf 1999).

Historic settlement of the western Colorado area occurred during the early 1800s with

the arrival of government survey expeditions. Fur trappers and traders penetrated the

area shortly after A.D. 1800. The Colorado Territory was established in 1861. With the

relocation of the Ute to reservations in 1881,EuroAmerican settlers built towns andestablished mineral mines and lumber mills. Land was cleared for crop cultivation, cattle

ranchers moved into the area, and railroads were eventually built to move goods in and

out of the region. Sheep and cattle ranching became the dominant industry in the early

1900s in west-central Colorado (Athearn 1976). Historic occupation of Paradox Valley

has been limited to homesteading, mining, and livestock grazing. The Uravan Mining


14/57





Belt that includes Paradox Valley is rich in carnotite ore or yellowcake. Oil and gas

exploration began in 1948 and continues in the region to the present day (Paulson and

Baker 2006). Ranching operations and the revived uranium boom are currently the

dominant industries.

Previous InvestigationsA file and literature review was conducted with the Colorado Office of Archaeology

and Historic Preservation (OAHP), Denver. The file review indicates that three previous

cultural resource inventories have been conducted within a mile of the project area

(Table 1). No previously documented cultural resources occur within the current project

area.

The three previous inventories include a linear seismic survey, a block survey for a

uranium lease, and a cultural resource block and linear survey performed by Fort Lewis

College. A survey conducted by Lone Mountain Archaeological Services (Hurt and

Seymour 1999) in 1999 is the only project that resulted in the location of cultural

resources - two isolated finds - within mile of the current project area. The Lone

Mountain survey was performed for 3-D seismic lines on Sawtooth Ridge, and the

isolated finds include a projectile point tip (5MN5311) and a quartzite projectile point

midsection (5MN5324). The other two previous inventories include a 6,000-acre survey

by Fort Lewis College in 1975 in Montrose and San Miguel counties that resulted in the

location of 22 archaeological sites (Applegarth and Van Ness 1975), none within mile

of the current project area. A 370-acre survey by the Bureau of Land Management for a

uranium lease in 1980 resulted in the location of two sites and four isolated finds, none

within the current project area (Steel 1980).


15/57





Table 1. Previous surveys within mile of the project area.

SHPO or BLM

Project

Number Project Name Acreage

Number of Sites

within Project

Area

MC.LM.R310

From Early Man to the Nuclear Age Class III

Cultural Resource Survey for the Sawtooth Ridge

3-D Seismic Survey, Montrose and San Miguel

Counties, Colorado (Hurt and Seymour 1999)

3,867 0

MC.NP.R44

Archaeological and Cultural Resource Survey of

the Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose and San Miguel

Counties, Colorado (Steel 1980)

6,000 0

MN.LM.R145

A Cultural Resource Survey of the Cotter

Corporation Uranium Lease Tract C-JD-7, Paradox

Valley Open Pit Project, Montrose County,

Colorado (Applegarth and Van Ness 1975)

370 0

Site Evaluation CriteriaSites investigated during this inventory were evaluated for their eligibility to be listed

in 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 of

construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic

value, or that represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose componentsmay lack individual 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


16/57





50 years shall not be considered eligible for the NRHP. 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 significant

primarily for its architecture, or which is the surviving structure most importantly

associated 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

d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of

transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or fromassociation with historic events; or

e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and

presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no

building or structure with the same association has survived; or

f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, orsymbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or

g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional

importance.

Cultural resources were evaluated based on the criteria listed above. In addition, the

research questions posed in the regional context (Reed and Metcalf 1999) were used as a

guide. The context provides more specific guidance for the application of NRHP criteria,

especially Criterion D. Eligible sites are those that display one or more of the criterion

for eligibility listed above. In addition, sites evaluated as eligible must retain physical

integrity. Eroded or otherwise heavily disturbed sites are not considered eligible. Sites

evaluated as needing data are those sites that may conform to the eligibility criteria, but

require further work to determine NRHP status. In most cases, these sites are prehistoric

or historic sites with suspected buried cultural material, or historic sites where additional

research is necessary to determine historical significance. Sites that are evaluated as not

eligible do not meet any of the eligibility criteria and/or have lost physical integrity.


17/57





MethodsThe purpose of this cultural resource inventory is to comply with Section 106 of the

NHPA (1966, as amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). A

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

Once artifacts were located, the survey was halted and a 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, repeated

use 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 asingle 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 associated with flaked lithic material


18/57





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

considered an isolated find.

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

thickness ratios (Callahan 1979) (illustrations of this process are provided 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

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

secondary flakes have less than 50% cortex; and tertiary flakes do not exhibit any cortex.

Although the flaws in this method of flake typology are inherent (Andrefsky 1998), it

characterizes 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 element and morphological attributes that emphasize

existing conditions and cross sections. Typological assessment is dependent upon project

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

Holmer (1978, 1986), Irwin-Williams (1973), Pitblado (1999), Smiley (1995), 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


19/57





the area. Ceramic types for west-central Colorado may be found in the edited volume,

Archaeological Pottery of Colorado (Brunswig et al. 1995); also applicable is Ellwood

(2002) and Buckles (1971).

Facility construction has the potential to adversely affect nine archaeological sites

documented in the project area (5MN8272, 5MN8271, 5MN8273, 5MN8274, 5MN8277,

5MN8276, 5MN8281, 5MN8283, and 5MN8278), with the possibility of an additional

four archaeological sites being affected if development extends outside of current

development areas (5MN8275, 5MN8280, 5MN8279, and 5MN8282). A sample of these

13 sites was chosen for controlled artifact collection and subsurface testing. Controlled

artifact collection, or Phase II, was conducted by revisiting these sites and re-pinflagging

all surface artifacts. All observed artifacts were located using GPS; unmodified flakes

were coded by raw material and whether they were located in an artifact concentration or

from a general site provenience. Stone tools (e.g., retouched flakes, bifaces, and hafted

bifaces), ceramic sherds, and ground stone were assigned individual field specimen (FS)

numbers and collected individually. Only a sample of the ground stone was collected due

to curation issues, but those not collected were photographed and analyzed in the field.

Following controlled surface collection, a backhoe was used to excavate a trench

measuring 2 feet wide by about 8 feet long. Excavation was halted at the contact with the

calcium carbonate (CaCO3) layer evident at about 50 to 60 cm bgs. At this point, the age

of the sediment dates to the Pleistocene and, therefore, is outside the range of human

occupation. One profile wall from each trench was photographed and described. No soil

samples were taken. Six archaeological sites were trenched, providing an accurate

representation of the subsurface deposits in the project area and across multiple

landforms. The data from these trenches and information provided by the project

geologist (Schlenker, pers. comm. 2007) were used to evaluate the potential forsubsurface cultural deposits in the remaining sites.

All collected artifacts were analyzed. Flake debitage analysis followed the flake

typology provided by Sullivan and Rozen (1985), which is often referred to as the free

standing typology that uses interpretation-free definitions of complete, broken, flake


20/57





fragment, and shatter debitage. Next, the flakes were categorized according to size

grades using a method developed by Ahler (1989), although modified in this instance.

Flakes were simply placed on a sheet of paper that has circles corresponding to sizes up

to: inch (Grade 1), to inch (Grade 2), to inch (Grade 3), and 1 to inch

(Grade 4), or greater (Grade 5). Flakes were also analyzed for platform type, amount of

dorsal cortex, termination type, and raw material identification. Stone tools were

measured for length, width, and thickness; a width/thickness ratio was calculated for

bifaces; and raw material and cross section was identified. Projectile points were subject

to detailed analysis and included the following metric attributes: maximum length, width,

and thickness (measured at haft/blade juncture); base width; neck width; haft length

(measured from shoulders to base); and notch depth (averaged for two side notches).

Recorded morphological attributes include notch type (side and/or basal), overall

condition, general flaking pattern, base shape, cross section, tip morphology, and

presence/absence of reworking and thermal alteration. The guiding premise behind the

recorded metric attributes follows Thomas (1981) assertion that the haft is the least

subject to reworking or modification and, therefore, is the most amenable to typological

classification.

Since only a single ceramic sherd was documented in the project area, no detailed

analysis was conducted. A minimal metric analysis of ground stone took place, including

maximum length, width, and thickness. A descriptive analysis included surface type

(e.g., flat or trough), number of ground surfaces (e.g., unifacial or bifacial and/or edges),

and the presence/absence of beveling and modification (e.g., pecking and thermal

alteration) (Adams 2002). All of the manos in the project assemblage were likely used

one-handed.

All laboratory analysis documentation is on file with ERO Resources Corporation.

Inventory ResultsDuring the inventory of the Energy Fuels Pinon Mill Development project, 20 new

sites were documented (see Table 2).


21/57





Table 2. Newly documented sites within the project area.

Smithsonian

Number

Temporary

Site Number Site Type Temporal Period

NRHP

Eligibility Status

5MN8269 PM01 Open Camp Early Archaic to

Late Prehistoric

Field

Eligible

Collected/Trenched

5MN8270 PM02 Sheltered Camp Late Formative FieldEligible

BaselineDocumentation

5MN8271 PM03 Open LithicScatter

Late Archaic/EarlyFormative to Late

Formative

Field NotEligible

Partially Collected

5MN8272 PM04 Open Lithic

Scatter

Late Archaic or

Early Formative

Field Not

Eligible

Baseline

Documentation


UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible

Collected/Trenched

5MN8274 PM06 Open Camp Early to LateArchaic/Protohistoric Ute

Field NotEligible

Collected/Trenched

5MN8275 PM07 Historic

HabitationEuroAmerican Field Not

Eligible

Baseline

Documentation

5MN8276 PM08 Open ArtifactScatter

Late Paleoindian Jimmy Allen

Field NotEligible

Collected


UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible

Collected/Trenched

5MN8278 PM10 Historic

HabitationEuroAmerican Field Not

Eligible

Baseline

Documentation

5MN8279 PM11 Open Artifact

Scatter

Middle Archaic

Humboldt

Field Not

EligibleCollected/Trenched


UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible



UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible


5MN8282 PM14 Open Lithic

Scatter

Unknown

Prehistoric

Field Not

Eligible

Baseline

Documentation

5MN8283 PM15 Open Camp Basketmaker II Field NotEligible

Collected/Scraped


Late Archaic orTerminal Elko

Series

FieldEligible



UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible


5MN8286 PM18 Open Artifact

Scatter

Unknown

Prehistoric

Field

Eligible

Baseline

Documentation

5MN8287 PM19 HistoricHabitation

EuroAmerican Field NotEligible


5MN8288 PM20 Open ArtifactScatter

UnknownPrehistoric

Field NotEligible



22/57





SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Site Number: 5MN8269

Site Type: Open Camp

Site Description: The site is located on the

Two vegetation communities, open pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush,

provide an ecotone environment within the site boundary. The site is a dispersed flaked

lithic and tool stone scatter located Surface

artifacts become increasingly dispersed from east to west. Site 5MN8270 is located

and artifacts located on the slope have an uncertain

provenience.

This site was subject to controlled collection and evaluative subsurface testing. All

surface artifacts were 100% collected. The surface flaked debitage assemblage was

divided into two proveniences a non-concentrated general provenience and Locus 1. A

total of 28 flakes were analyzed as part of Locus 1, located along the southeast portion of

the site The locus was

dominated by gray Dakota orthoquartzite (n=17) of which 11 are flake fragments, three

are complete, and three are broken flakes. Size grades of these flakes are generally large,

all exceeding size grade 3 and seven exceeding size grade 4. Six of these flakes exhibit

cortex. The analysis indicates that Locus 1 was used primarily for secondary, hard

hammer percussion, core reduction, and may have been a single reduction episode. The

remaining flaked lithic debitage from Locus 1 are variegated chert, chalcedony, and

quartzite flakes whose morphology indicates secondary core reduction. The rest of the

site contained 43 flakes, again dominated by gray Dakota orthoquartzite (n=30) with

significantly less quartzite, fossiliferous chert and other variegated chert. Flake

morphology is dominated by complete and broken flakes (n=31), and platforms that are

both single and multi-faceted; size grades tend to be large. Overall, flake morphology

indicates a mix of hard and soft hammer percussion and middle to late stage reduction.

Tools collected include nine retouched flakes, 12 bifaces, one uniface, and one core

fragment; and three collected projectile points. The retouched flakes include six


23/57





unilateral side scrapers, one thumbnail scraper (FS 1), one steeply retouched endscraper

(FS 11), and one ovoid scraper of chalcedony that is fully retouched along its margins

(FS 14). The bifaces represent Stages 2-5 and include small tool fragments (FS 7, FS 18,

and FS 36), one probable projectile point midsection (FS 42), a Stage 4 preform of

yellow chert (FS 30), and early stage bifaces (FS 5, FS 8, FS 31, and FS 34). During the

collection phase, eight tools observed and recorded during the survey phase were not

relocated. These include five bifaces (FS 2, FS 3, FS 15, FS 16, and FS 23), one

retouched flake (FS 17), and one mano fragment (FS 20). See Appendix C-2, Figures 1-

13 for selected non-diagnostic artifacts.

The projectile points include a large low side-notched point (FS 10; Appendix C-1,

Figure 1) manufactured from orthoquartzite that is typological similar to Hawken dating

to the Early Archaic (Frison 1991), a large side-notched point (FS 19; Appendix C-1,

Figure 2) manufactured from Dakota orthoquartzite that is typologically similar to either

Northern Side-Notched or Mallory/San Rafael (Holmer 1986) and likely dates to the

Middle Archaic, and a non-diagnostic Late Prehistoric tip also manufactured from Dakota

orthoquartzite (FS 21; Appendix C-2, Figure 5). Both FS 19 and FS 21 were located

within Locus 1, and FS 10 was located a short distance to the north. A fourth projectile

point (FS 15; Appendix C-1, Figures 3 and 4) was unable to be relocated during thesystematic collection phase; it was drawn during initial recording and is typologically

similar to Sudden Side-Notched (Holmer 1986), which spans the Early and Middle

Archaic.

Eight ground stone specimens were recorded and three were collected (FS 9, FS 12,

and FS 29); the rest were too large. Of the ground stone, five specimens are metate

fragments and three are manos. FS 12 is a unifacially ground sandstone metate fragment;

FS 9 is a bifacially beveled, one-handed light tan sandstone mano that is split in half

(Appendix C-2, Figure 2); and FS 29 is a flat porphyritichornblendediorite cobble that

has probably been unifacially used as a polishing stone. It would not have functioned

effectively as a grinding stone and is from a laccolithic intrusion such as the La Sal

Mountains to the west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyritichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornblendehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioritehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioritehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornblendehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyritic


24/57





One feature (F 1) was observed, an ephemeral rock concentration of eight small

tabular sandstone rocks, in a somewhat circular configuration (several pieces are ground

stone fragments) measuring about 1.25 meters in diameter. Projectile point types suggest

occupation from the Early Archaic through Late Prehistoric periods with a probable Late

Archaic hiatus. The site appears to have been used as a temporary camp where stone tool

production and retooling took place, and has potential to provide information on

prehistoric settlement patterns, lithic technology (a probable single reduction episode

within Locus 1), and possible subsistence data and chronological control from F 1.

Five backhoe trenches were excavated (Figure 3).

Each trench excavation exhibited a similar sediment profile. From the surface to about 8

cm bgs is an A horizon (accumulation of organic matter mixed with mineral fraction)

with small rootlets and slightly organic, and from 8 cm bgs to about 60 cm bgs is a

homogenous Bk horizon (CaC03 enriched with illuviated clay) with increasing CaCO3 to

depth. No formal soil analysis was performed. However, no soil staining or charcoal

was noted except in the O horizon (near-surface organic) near the surface, and no buried

cultural material was observed either in the wall profiles or in the backdirt.

Management Recommendation: Avoid and protect. This site is recommended field

eligible. The diversity of artifacts, the presence of diagnostic projectile points, and apossible feature indicate repeated short-term habitation of the site. F 1 has the potential

to yield additional information on subsistence and chronology. Although 100% of the

surface assemblage was collected further laboratory

analysis has the potential to provide additional information on lithic reduction strategies,

tool manufacture, and site patterning. For management purposes, the eastern portion of

the site, containing F 1, is the contributing portion of the site; the western portion of the

site is considered non-contributing to the sites eligibility based on the excavation of four

backhoe trenches in this area.


25/57





Figure 3. Site 5MN8269, Trench 3 west-facing profile.

Trowel rests on CaCO3 horizon. This is a representative profile of all trenchesexcavated in the project area.


Site Type: Sheltered Camp

Site Description: The site is located

Pinyon-juniper woodlands dominate the vegetation and the soils are

reddish brown sandy loess.

This site was not collected.


26/57





The largest concentration of artifacts is located east and north

There is potential for shallowly buried deposits

Artifacts consist of 100 to 250 flakes of primarily Dakota

orthoquartzite, but black, white, and banded chert, and basalt were also observed.

Eighteen tools were recorded and described including one uniface of orthoquartzite (FS

1), five bifaces or biface fragments of chert and orthoquartzite (FS 2, FS 6, FS 13, FS 15,

and FS 16), four mano fragments (FS 3, FS 8, FS 9, FS 11), two core fragments of

orthoquartzite (FS 4 and FS 10), two retouched flakes (FS 5 and FS 17), one

orthoquartzite drill tip (FS 7), one tested cobble (FS 12), and one utilized orthoquartzite

flake (FS 14). The pinnacle and associated stained area is designated F 1.

FS 18 is a possible Cottonwood Triangular projectile point, but it also may be a Stage

4 preform (Appendix C-1, Figure 6). No other diagnostic artifacts were located. The site

appears to have been a temporary camp for resource processing and stone tool

manufacture. Given its proximity to site 5MN8269, they may be related temporally.Management Recommendation: Avoid and protect. The site is evaluated as field

eligible based on sufficient sediment deposition to contain buried cultural material and

the potential for F 1 to produce shallowly buried artifacts or related features. As of thiswriting, there are no development plans that may impact this site; subsequently the site

was not collected or tested.Site Number: 5MN8271

Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter

Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located

Vegetation consists primarily of sagebrush and

rabbitbrush and soils are reddish tan silty loess.

Artifacts were not dense on the site and consisted of approximately 32 primary and

secondary flakes of chert and Dakota orthoquartzite. Five tools were present including a

Stage 4 biface fragment of Dakota orthoquartzite (FS 1), a retouched flake of red

quartzite (FS 2), a chert retouched flake (FS 3), a chert corner-notched projectile point

(FS 4; Appendix C-1, Figure 7), a Stage 4 biface of Dakota orthoquartzite (FS 5), and a


27/57





small side-notched projectile point (FS 6; Appendix C-1, Figure 8). No features were

noted.

The large corner-notched projectile point suggests a Late Archaic (2500 to 2000 B.P.)

temporal period typologically similar to what Buckles designated the Horse Fly phase

(Buckles 1986) and which corresponds to the Terminal period of the Northern Colorado

River Basin (Reed and Metcalf 1999). The small side-notched projectile point is a Plains

Side-Notch dating to the late Formative period (post-A.D. 1000). This site was used for

activities related to lithic reduction and tool manufacture.Management Recommendation: No further work. The limited surface assemblage

and results of trench excavations at nearby sites posits a recommendation of field not

eligible. The site exhibits a limited quantity and diversity of artifacts. Subsurface testing

at sites located on the same landform to the south indicates that buried cultural deposits

are highly unlikely. Documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.




Vegetation is big sagebrush Soils arereddish tan silty loess.

A total of 47 secondary flakes (43 are Dakota orthoquartzite and four are chert) were

observed. One large to medium corner-notched projectile point (FS 1; Appendix C-1,

Figure 11) manufactured from Dakota orthoquartzite was also present, suggesting a Late

Archaic (Terminal) to Early Formative occupation. The site appears to have been a

single lithic reduction episode and retooling location given the near exclusive use of

Dakota orthoquartzite and discarded projectile point. The absence of other

tools/activities supports this inference.

Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available

evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. The artifact assemblage indicates a

single synchronic occupation. Subsurface testing at adjacent sites along the same


28/57





landform indicates that buried cultural deposits are unlikely. Documentation has

exhausted the research potential of the site.



Site Description: The site is an open lithic and ground stone scatter located

Surface sediment is reddish tan silty loess.

Vegetation is primarily big sagebrush.

A total of 136 flakes were collected in four activity loci. Flaked lithic debitage is

nearly all Dakota orthoquartzite with chalcedony (Locus 2) and variegated chert.

Artifacts were concentrated in four loci across the site. Locus 1 is dominated by Dakota

orthoquartzite with oolitic chert, opaque chert, and variegated orthoquartzite. Flake

morphology indicates secondary stage hard hammer core reduction with significantly less

evidence for late stage biface thinning. Locus 2 consists entirely of 20 chalcedony flakes

representing a single reduction episode of secondary and late stage tool manufacture.

Locus 3 consists of five flakes derived from chalcedony and orthoquartzite; this locus

may be related spatially to either Locus 1 or 2. Locus 4 is also dominated by Dakota

orthoquartzite with lesser quantities of chert and variegated orthoquartzite. Flakemorphology indicates an emphasis toward late stage tool manufacture based on flake

type, small size grades, and paucity of cortex evident on flakes.

Five tools were observed and collected (FS 1 through FS 5). FS 4 and FS 5 were

pulled from bulk lithic in the laboratory. FS 1 is a Stage 3 biface of Dakota

orthoquartzite located in Locus 3; FS 2 is a unifacially ground sandstone metate

fragment; FS 3 is a Stage 4 biface fragment of Dakota orthoquartzite; FS 4 is a retouched

flake of chalcedony; and FS 5 is a retouched flake of Dakota orthoquartzite. No features

or diagnostic artifacts were observed. The site was a temporary camp that appears to

have been visited by multiple groups or revisited over time for activities related to lithic

reduction and tool manufacture. Each locus appears to have been a single reduction

episode of varying intensity.


29/57





Three backhoe trenches were excavated to evaluate the potential for buried cultural

material. This site was the first to be trenched in the project area. The three exposed

profiles were similar: from the surface to 20 cm bgs, the sediment was slightly

consolidated sandy loess; from 20 to 40 cm bgs, the sediment became a more compact

sandy loam; from 40 to 50 cm bgs, the clay had been translocated from the sediment and

weak CaCO3 had developed; and below 50 cm bgs, the sediment was saturated with

CaCO3.

Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended field

not eligible and 100% controlled collection of artifacts took place. No buried cultural

material was located through trenching, nor was there evidence for cultural staining. Site

documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.



Site Description: The site is an open lithic and ground stone scatter located

Vegetation

consists primarily of sagebrush and surface sediment is reddish tan sandy loess. This site

is located a

A total of 31 artifacts were observed, but only 28 were collected (three could not berelocated during controlled collection phase). The surface assemblage consists of 22

flakes, three biface fragments (two collected), two projectile points (one collected and

one drawn), three manos, and one slab metate fragment.

The flaked lithic assemblage is more varied than other sites in the project area

because orthoquartzite and oolitic chert is the most dominant, followed by variegated

chert and chalcedony. Flake morphology appears to be more oriented toward secondary

reduction as size grades tend to be larger and there are more broken flakes, fragments,

and shatter in the assemblage. Few flakes exhibit cortex. The flakes themselves are

dispersed over a large area and do not conform to any readily discernible concentration.

FS 1 is a semitranslucent dark chalcedony or oolitic chert projectile point that is

typologically similar to a Pinto Shouldered or Elko Eared (Appendix C-1, Figures 9 and

10); FS 2 is a Stage 2-3 orthoquartzite biface fragment; FS 3 is a Stage 3 biface fragment


30/57





of green chert or silicified sediment; FS 4 is a biface fragment of beige chert; FS 5 is a

brown ware sherd (not relocated); and FS 6 is a projectile point base (morphologically

similar to FS 1) of green chert (Appendix C-1, Figures 12 and 13). Ground stone consists

of a unifacially ground sandstone slab metate fragment (FS 8), one thermally fractured

sandstone mano fragment (FS 7), and two complete sandstone manos located next to each

other (FS 9).

No features were noted. The projectile points indicate an Early Archaic through Late

Archaic occupation depending on whether these points are typed as Pinto Shouldered or

Elko Eared (Holmer 1986). The presence of a probable Uncompahgre brownware sherd

indicates a Numic cultural affiliation. The site appears to have been a location for

activities related to tool manufacture and retooling, and may have been a temporary

hunting camp. One backhoe trench was excavated within the site boundaries producing

an identical sediment profile as site 5MN8273 described above.


not eligible and 100% controlled collection of artifacts took place. No buried cultural

material was located through trenching, nor was there evidence for cultural staining. Site

documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.

Site Number: 5MN8275Site Type: Historic Habitation


Vegetation is dominated by

sagebrush, and surface sediment is reddish tan silty loess.

Hundreds of artifacts were observed on site including hole-in-top cans; tobacco tins;

sanitary cans; lard buckets; amethyst, clear, aqua, and brown glass; white porcelain with

blue and green paint; whiteware; machined nails; and a safety pin. Three features (F 1 to

F 3) were observed and documented. F 1 is a linear rock alignment that may have been

the foundation for a structure. F 2 is a well located at least 10 meters west of F 1. The

well is constructed of three to four courses of semishaped sandstone rocks, lined with

mortar. It measures about 9 feet in diameter (exterior) and is about 7 feet deep. F 3 is a

circular depression to the north about 30 meters from F 1 and F 2. The depression is


31/57





about 14 feet in diameter, and is of unknown function. The site most likely dates to the

early 1900s based on the observed artifact assemblage. General Land Office (GLO)

records for the State of Colorado indicate that the property was purchased by William

Sullivan on January 27, 1914 under the Homestead Act of 1862.

Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended as

field not eligible. The site retains no structural integrity and it is not known to be

associated with significant persons or events. The site is unlikely to yield additional

significant information beyond current documentation.


Site Type: Open Artifact Scatter

Site Description: The site is a very sparse lithic scatter

Vegetation consists mainly of


Only 11 artifacts were observed and collected, including eight secondary oolitic chert

and quartzite flakes, a biface fragment of gray-red orthoquartzite (FS 1), the base of a

Jimmy Allen projectile manufactured from white chert (FS 2; Appendix C-1, Figure 14),

and a sandstone mano/hammerstone (FS 3). The surface assemblage is widely dispersed

within the site boundaries and it is possible that the flakes and FS 1 or FS 3 are notrelated to the Jimmy Allen point. The mano is 7 meters northeast of the point. The site

appears to have been used temporarily for activities related to lithic reduction and vegetal

processing.


not eligible. The site is a very limited and dispersed artifact assemblage with no features.

Subsurface testing at adjacent sites and similar landforms indicate little potential for

buried cultural materials. Controlled collection of surface artifacts (100%) took place on

the site to exhaust the data potential. The site is unlikely to yield additional significant

information beyond current documentation.


32/57








Vegetation consists mainly of


Artifacts consist of 33 flakes, four bifaces (FS 2, FS 4, FS 6, and FS 7), four

retouched flakes (FS 3, FS 5, FS 8, and FS 9), and one drill tip (FS 1). No diagnostic

artifacts were present.

The flaked lithic debitage was documented in two proveniences: Locus 1 and general

bulk lithic. Locus 1 contained 21 flakes, all of which are derived from variegated

orthoquartzite. Flake morphology indicates an emphasis toward secondary, hard hammer

percussion reduction with few occurrences of cortex. The general bulk lithic assemblage

consists of 12 flakes, all of which are variegated orthoquartzite except for two chalcedony

flakes. The distribution of flakes indicates that one or two reduction episodes took place

in conjunction with stone tool manufacture and use. All representative biface stages are

present in the assemblage.

A single backhoe trench was excavated within site boundaries following artifact

collection to assess the potential for subsurface cultural deposits. No evidence of culturalmaterial was found. The sediment profile is similar to the other trenches excavated in the

area and consists of the following: from the surface to 10 cm bgs was unconsolidated

sand; from 10 to 30 cm bgs was a sandy loam (probable Btk horizon); from 30 to 50 cm

bgs was moderate CaCO3; and below 50 cm bgs, the profile was saturated with CaCO3.


not eligible. The site contains a limited and sparse artifact assemblage with no features.

A trench and shovel test were excavated and yielded no buried cultural material. The site

underwent 100% controlled collection of artifacts to exhaust the research potential of the

site, since it will be affected by the proposed project.


33/57






Site Type: Historic Habitation


Vegetation consists mainly of prickly pear and

grasses, and soils are orange-tan sandy loess.

Four features and associated historic trash comprise the site. F 1 is a fenceline; F 2 is

a possible foundation with structural debris (milled lumber and nails); F 3 is a rough

rectangular depression with rocks and cross beam on its west end and two associated

posts in the depression; and F 4 is a circular depression with coal and kiln bricks. F 2 is a

possible habitation structure and F 3 is a probable dugout or cellar that was once roofed.

The function of F 4 may have been a trash pit, kiln, or even a coke oven for processing

coal. Trash includes amethyst, clear, brown, and aqua glass; stove parts; metal

fragments; whiteware; barrel hoops; nails; milled limber; wire; and barbed wire.

Artifacts suggest that the site most likely dates to the early 1900s and that limited

habitation took place at the location. GLO records indicate that the property was

purchased by Maurice F. Sullivan on March 4, 1916 under the Homestead Act of 1862.


evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. The site does not retain structural

integrity and is not known to be associated with significant persons or events.

Documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.


Site Type: Open Artifact Scatter

Site Description: The site is located in

Vegetation consists of sagebrush,

rabbitbrush, prickly pear, and bunch grasses.

Artifacts include 55 secondary flakes, 21 of which were collected and subjected to

laboratory analysis. Flake morphology indicates an emphasis toward secondary lithic

reduction based on large size grades and unprepared platforms. Hard hammer percussion


34/57





was the dominant reduction medium, based on the incidence of flake fragments and

shatter in the assemblage.

Ten flaked lithic and ground stone tools were identified and documented (FS 1through FS 10). FS 1 is a sandstone one-handed mano; FS 2 is a large gray sandstone

metate unifacially ground and flat; FS 3 is either a Humboldt projectile point base

fragment or Cottonwood Leaf-shaped (Appendix C-1, Figure 15); FS 4 is a Stage 3 biface

fragment of black chert; FS 5 is a buff-colored, unifacially ground and flat sandstone

metate; FS 6 is a retouched orthoquartzite flake; FS 7 is a sandstone metate fragment; FS

8 is an unmodified basalt cobble (ecofact); FS 9 is a sandstone metate fragment; and FS

10 is a Stage 4 chert biface fragment. No features were identified.

The possible Humboldt concave-base lanceolate projectile point suggests a Middle

Archaic (3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.) occupation of the site; conversely, if it is a Cottonwood

it would place the site to the late Formative or Protohistoric periods (Holmer 1986). The

site was used as a temporary camp and location for resource processing and tool

manufacture activities. The number of flat unifacially ground metates suggests that

vegetal processing was an important activity.

Two trenches were excavated within the site boundaries to evaluate the potential for

buried cultural deposits, which yielded no buried cultural material. Trench profiles

indicate a similar sediment deposition profile to the other trenches excavated within the

project area. The profile for Trench 2: from the surface to 5 cm bgs is an unconsolidated

sandy loess; from 5 cm to 40 cm bgs is a reddish brown sandy loess; and below 40 cm

bgs is a light brown, compact sandy loess with moderate CaCO3 accumulation.


not eligible. Although the site exhibits a diverse artifact assemblage, two trenches

excavated to evaluate the potential for buried deposits were negative for buried cultural

material. All observed surface artifacts at the site were collected for analysis and to

exhaust the data potential of the site. The research potential of the site has been

exhausted through documentation.


35/57








Surface sediment is reddish tan sandy loess and the

vegetation consists of sagebrush, snakeweed, and bunch grasses. An ephemeral drainage

is located a short distance to the east.

Documented surface artifacts consist of 27 secondary flakes of orthoquartzite. No

tools or features were observed. The site is most likely the result of a single lithic

reduction episode, as artifacts are concentrated and do not occur in the cleared area

around the site. Subsurface testing at adjacent sites indicates little potential for additional

buried cultural materials.


evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. The assemblage indicates a single

reduction episode; documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.

Subsurface testing at adjacent sites indicates little potential for buried cultural material.




Vegetation consists of sagebrush, snakeweed, and

bunch grasses, and surface sediment is reddish tan sandy loess. The site is located

Documented surface artifacts consist of 23 secondary flakes of orthoquartzite, six

secondary chert flakes, and one tool (FS 1). FS 1 is a retouched flake of red chert. No

features were observed. The site is most likely the location of a single lithic reduction

episode. Two shovel tests were excavated on site, one of which yielded two flakes in

unconsolidated sandy loess between 0 and 10 cm bgs. Given the extensive testing of

other sites within the project area and on similar landforms, the documentation of

subsurface artifacts is most likely spurious and probably recovered from a near surface

context, but shovel testing is not amenable to precise vertical provenience.


36/57






evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. The site is a small lithic scatter that

probably represents a single synchronic lithic reduction episode. Although a shovel test

produced two flakes in unconsolidated soils between 0 and 10 cm bgs, it is probable that

these flakes originated from a near surface context. The potential for buried cultural

deposits is remote based on the results of subsurface testing at other sites within the

project area. Current documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.



Site Description: The site is a small concentrated lithic scatter located

Vegetation

consists of sagebrush, snakeweed, and bunch grasses, and surface sediment is reddish tan

sandy loess. The main two-track running through the project area is located

Documented surface artifacts consist of 28 secondary orthoquartzite flakes and two

secondary chert flakes. No features or diagnostic artifacts were observed. The site

appears to be the location of a single lithic reduction episode based on the concentrated

distribution of surface flakes and the dominance of a single raw material.

Management Recommendation: No further work. This site is recommended field

not eligible. The site is a small lithic scatter with a limited class of artifacts and no

features. Subsurface testing at adjacent sites indicates little potential for buried cultural

deposits. Current documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site.




Vegetation consists of sagebrush, snakeweed, and

saltbush, and surface sediment is reddish tan sandy loess. It appears portions of the site

area have been cleared of vegetation in the past.


37/57





The documented surface assemblage consists of 59 secondary flakes (100%

collected). The surface assemblage was documented as two proveniences, a general bulk

lithic and Locus 1. Locus 1 consists of 37 flakes dominated by variegated orthoquartzite

and variegated chert and quartzite. Flake morphology indicates that the full range of

reduction took place, although dominated by secondary core reduction. Cortex was

minimally evident on flakes. The general bulk lithic assemblage is again dominated by

variegated orthoquartzite and lesser numbers of variegated chert flakes. A tested cobble

nodule indicates that local gravels were used as a secondary lithic source.

Fifteen tools (FS 1 through FS 15) were documented. FS 1 is a Stage 4 biface

midsection manufactured from orthoquartzite; FS 2 through FS 4 are orthoquartzite cores,

one of which is a cobble; FS 5 is a small one-handed sandstone mano fragment that is

bifacially ground and pecked with battering on extant end; FS 6 is a flat unifacially

ground sandstone metate fragment; FS 7 is two core fragments of tabular orthoquartzite;

FS 8 is a bifacially ground, one-handed sandstone mano fragment split in half; and FS 9

through FS 12 are minimally retouched flakes, three of which were pulled from bulk

lithic provenience. FS 13 is a large corner-notched projectile point with a rounded to

convex base that resembles Basketmaker II type points (Appendix C-1, Figure 16). FS

14 and FS 15 are tested chert nodules.

No features were observed on site. The site was most likely a temporary camp and

location for vegetal processing and lithic reduction activities. Following controlled

artifact collection, an area measuring about 24 feet by 30 feet was scraped within Locus 1

using a backhoe to evaluate the sites potential for subsurface cultural deposits. Multiple

scrapes revealed no buried cultural material or staining.

Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended as

field not eligible. Extensive subsurface testing indicated no evidence for subsurface

cultural deposits and 100% collection has exhausted the research potential of the site.


38/57








Vegetation consists of

pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, prickly pear, and rabbitbrush. Surface sediments are reddish

tan silty loess overlying alluvial fan deposits.

Artifacts consist of 100 to 200 orthoquartzite, quartzite, and chert flakes;

orthoquartzite being the dominant material. Eleven tools (FS 1 through FS 11) were

observed on site. No collection took place. FS 1 is a core of green Dakota

orthoquartzite; FS 2 is a Stage 4 preform of dark brown chert; FS 3 is a gray quartzite

projectile point (Appendix C-1, Figure 17); FS 4 is a white orthoquartzite Stage 3 biface;

FS 5 is a Stage 3 biface midsection; FS 6 is a Stage 3 biface distal end; FS 7 is a Stage 4

biface distal end; FS 8 is a biface of green unknown lithic material with inclusions; FS 9

is a Stage 4 biface fragment of Dakota orthoquartzite; FS 10 is a retouched orthoquartzite

biface; FS 11 is a Stage 4 red chert biface fragment; and FS 12 is an orthoquartzite core.

The corner-notched projectile point is typologically similar to an Elko Corner-

notched. In the eastern Great Basin/Intermountain Region, this type has a long temporal

duration (Holmer 1986) and is a poor diagnostic artif

pinon ridge mill - redacted cultural resources report project area

Documents