Pinon Ridge Mill - Redacted Cultural Resources Report Project Area

CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for Kleinfelder 8300 Jefferson NE, Suite B Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113
Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation 1075 Main Avenue, Suite 222 Durango, Colorado 81301
Written by Angela Whitfield Sean 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
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
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
FIGURES
Figure 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............................................12 Table 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
i
p:\3900 projects\3987 energy fuels pinon mill\final print\final report.doc ERO Project #3987
CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO DECEMBER 2007 Introduction
On 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 Area

The 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
CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO
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 pinyonjuniper woodlands. The dominant community over most of the project area is semidesert 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).
ERO Project #3987
Pinon Mill Cultural Resources Survey Report Montrose County, Colorado

T46N; R17W; Sections 5, 8 and 17 New Mexico Prime Meridian USGS Bull Canyon and Davis Mesa, Colorado 7.5' Quadrangles
500 250 0 500 Meters
Figure 1. Project Location
1:24,000
Prepared for: Kleinfelder File: 3987fig1.pdf November 2007
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).
ERO Project #3987
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.
ERO Project #3987
Cultural Overview
The 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 of Colorado 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, Cody Complex, 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 6
ERO Project #3987
(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 marked by 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 (IrwinWilliams 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
ERO Project #3987
(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
ERO Project #3987
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
ERO Project #3987
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 and established 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
ERO Project #3987
10
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 Investigations
A 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).
ERO Project #3987
11
Table 1. Previous surveys within mile of the project area.

SHPO or BLM Project Number MC.LM.R310 Project Name 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) Archaeological and Cultural Resource Survey of the Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose and San Miguel Counties, Colorado (Steel 1980) 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) Acreage 3,867 Number of Sites within Project Area 0
MC.NP.R44
6,000
MN.LM.R145
370
Site Evaluation Criteria

Sites 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 the broad 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 components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 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
ERO Project #3987
12
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 artistic distinction 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 is no 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 from association 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, or symbolic 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.
ERO Project #3987
13
Methods
The 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 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 associated with flaked lithic material
ERO Project #3987
14
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 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 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
ERO Project #3987
15
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 for subsurface 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
ERO Project #3987
16
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 Results
During the inventory of the Energy Fuels Pinon Mill Development project, 20 new sites were documented (see Table 2).
ERO Project #3987
17
Table 2. Newly documented sites within the project area.

Smithsonian Number 5MN8269 5MN8270 5MN8271 Temporary Site Number PM01 PM02 PM03 Site Type Open Camp Sheltered Camp Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Camp Temporal Period Early Archaic to Late Prehistoric Late Formative Late Archaic/Early Formative to Late Formative Late Archaic or Early Formative Unknown Prehistoric Early to Late Archaic/ Protohistoric Ute EuroAmerican Late Paleoindian Jimmy Allen Unknown Prehistoric EuroAmerican Middle Archaic Humboldt Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Basketmaker II Late Archaic or Terminal Elko Series Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric EuroAmerican Unknown Prehistoric NRHP Eligibility Field Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Status Collected/Trenched Baseline Documentation Partially Collected
5MN8272 5MN8273 5MN8274
PM04 PM05 PM06
Baseline Documentation Collected/Trenched Collected/Trenched
5MN8275 5MN8276 5MN8277 5MN8278 5MN8279 5MN8280 5MN8281 5MN8282 5MN8283 5MN8284
PM07 PM08 PM09 PM10 PM11 PM12 PM13 PM14 PM15 PM16
Historic Habitation Open Artifact Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Historic Habitation Open Artifact Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Camp Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Artifact Scatter Historic Habitation Open Artifact Scatter
Baseline Documentation Collected Collected/Trenched Baseline Documentation Collected/Trenched Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation Collected/Scraped Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation Baseline Documentation
5MN8285 5MN8286 5MN8287 5MN8288
PM17 PM18 PM19 PM20
ERO Project #3987
18
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
ERO Project #3987
19
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 113 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 the systematic 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 porphyritic hornblende diorite 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.
ERO Project #3987
20
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 a possible 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.
ERO Project #3987
21
Figure 3. Site 5MN8269, Trench 3 west-facing profile.
Trowel rests on CaCO3 horizon. This is a representative profile of all trenches excavated in the project area. Site Number: 5MN8270 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.
ERO Project #3987
22
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 this writing, 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
ERO Project #3987
23
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. Site Number: 5MN8272 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located
Vegetation is big sagebrush reddish tan silty loess.
Soils are
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
ERO Project #3987
24
landform indicates that buried cultural deposits are unlikely. Documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site. Site Number: 5MN8273 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter 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. Flake morphology 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.
ERO Project #3987
25
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 Number: 5MN8274 Site Type: Open Camp 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 be relocated 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
ERO Project #3987
26
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. 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 Number: 5MN8275 Site Type: Historic Habitation Site Description: The site is located 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
ERO Project #3987
27
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 Number: 5MN8276 Site Type: Open Artifact Scatter Site Description: The site is a very sparse lithic scatter Vegetation consists mainly of sagebrush, and surface sediment is reddish tan silty loess. 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 not related 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. Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended field 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.
ERO Project #3987
28
Site Number: 5MN8277 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located Vegetation consists mainly of sagebrush, and surface sediment is reddish tan silty loess. 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 cultural material 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. Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended field 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.
ERO Project #3987
29
Site Number: 5MN8278 Site Type: Historic Habitation Site Description: The site is located 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. Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available 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 Number: 5MN8279 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
ERO Project #3987
30
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 1 through 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. Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended field 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.
ERO Project #3987
31
Site Number: 5MN8280 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is located 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. Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available 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. Site Number: 5MN8281 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is located 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.
ERO Project #3987
32
Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available 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 Number: 5MN8282 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter 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. Site Number: 5MN8283 Site Type: Open Camp Site Description: The site is located 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.
ERO Project #3987
33
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.
ERO Project #3987
34
Site Number: 5MN8284 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located 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 Cornernotched. In the eastern Great Basin/Intermountain Region, this type has a long temporal duration (Holmer 1986) and is a poor diagnostic artifact to date surface sites. In Colorado, large corner-notched points are generally associated with the Late Archaic or Terminal period of the Northern Colorado River Basin (Reed and Metcalf 1999). The site appears to have been a location for lithic reduction, tool manufacture, and retooling activities. Management Recommendation: Avoid and protect. In the absence of subsurface testing, this site is recommended field eligible. The site contains one of the larger flaked lithic assemblages in the project area, along with a variety of stone tools. Further analysis has potential to provide additional information on lithic technology, as well as settlement patterns and land use. The landform has the potential to produce buried cultural deposits.
ERO Project #3987
35
Site Number: 5MN8285 Site Type: Open Lithic Scatter Site Description: The site is a small lithic scatter located
Vegetation consists of sagebrush, snakeweed, saltbush, and bunch grasses. Surface sediments are reddish tan silty loess overlying alluvial fan deposits.
Artifacts consist of 38 secondary flakes of orthoquartzite and seven secondary chert flakes. Three tools were observed including a white chert projectile point tip (FS 1), a gray orthoquartzite projectile point tip (FS 2), and a retouched flake/scraper of green chert (FS 3). No features were observed on site. The site appears to have been used for limited secondary stage lithic reduction, tool manufacture, and retooling activities. Management Recommendation: No further work. The site is recommended field not eligible. It contains a limited class of artifacts and no features. The site appears to have been impacted Subsurface testing at
site 5MN8269 located to the east and on a similar landform produced no indication of cultural deposits. The research potential of the site has been exhausted through documentation. Site Number: 5MN8286 Site Type: Open Artifact Scatter Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located
Vegetation consists of pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush, and bunch grasses. Surface sediments are reddish tan silty loess overlying alluvial fan deposits. The artifact assemblage consists of 108 flakes, mainly of orthoquartzite, and seven tools (FS 1 through FS 7). FS 1 is a gray orthoquartzite biface, FS 2 is a quartzite biface, FS 3 is a sandstone mano fragment, FS 4 is an orthoquartzite core fragment, FS 5 and FS 6 are two sandstone mano fragments, and FS 7 is the distal end of an orthoquartzite
ERO Project #3987
36
biface. The site appears to have been a temporary camp for tool manufacture and use. Management Recommendation: Avoid and protect. Based on the available evidence, this site is recommended field eligible. The site has not been impacted, the artifact assemblage is diverse, and there is potential for buried deposits. The site has the potential to provide significant information on prehistoric land use patterns and lithic technology. Site Number: 5MN8287 Site Type: Historic Habitation Site Description: The site is located Vegetation is sagebrush, saltbush, and grasses, and surface sediments are reddish tan silty loess overlying alluvial fan deposits. The artifact assemblage consists of clear, brown, sun-colored amethyst, and aqua glass; white earthen ware sherds; wood with machined nails; and a metal funnel. Two features include a well and a rock alignment. F 1 is a cement-lined well/cistern at least 10 feet deep and covered with milled lumber. F 2 is a linear rock alignment, one course high, of unshaped tabular sandstone. Almost at an angle to and on the west end of F 1 is a milled lumber concentration with one piece about 12 feet long (2 x 6) with machined nails embedded in the board. F 2 is likely the remains of a structural pad given the amount of milled lumber and leveled area. However, given the state of deterioration and paucity of domestic refuse, the site was not occupied long. GLO records indicate portions of the northern half of Section 17 were patented to various individuals and entities including Maurice F. Sullivan on April 18, 1912; William Sullivan on January 5, 1914; and Standard Chemical Company on October 10, 1925. Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. Overall, the site retains no structural integrity, and is not known to be associated with significant persons or events of the area. There is also no evidence of a privy or cellar that might contain buried
ERO Project #3987
37
cultural deposits and additional information. Current documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site. Site Number: 5MN8288 Site Type: Open Artifact Scatter Site Description: The site is an open lithic scatter located Vegetation consists of sagebrush, grasses, and snakeweed. Surface sediments are reddish tan silty loess overlying alluvial fan deposits. The site is located
The artifact assemblage consists of 75 secondary flakes, mainly orthoquartzite, and five tools (FS 1 through FS 5). FS 1 is a biface fragment, FS 2 is a Stage 1 gray orthoquartzite biface, FS 3 is an orthoquartzite biface, FS 4 is the distal end of a projectile point, and FS 5 is a sandstone mano. The site appears to have been a location for activities related to tool manufacture and a possible temporary camp. Management Recommendation: No further work. Based on the available evidence, this site is recommended field not eligible. Subsurface testing throughout the project area has conclusively determined that project area landforms do not contain buried cultural material due to periodic degradation and aggradation of eolian deposits during the early Holocene. These landforms have been stable for at least the last 2,000 to 3,000 years. Current documentation has exhausted the research potential of the site. Isolated Finds Of the 14 recorded isolated finds, nine were prehistoric and five were historic. The majority of the isolated finds consist of a single or small scatter of lithic artifacts (see Appendix A). The dominant raw materials include local Dakota orthoquartzite and chert. A few biface fragments of various stages were documented; however, no isolated diagnostic projectile points were located (see Appendix B). One complete mano and one mano fragment were recorded as isolates, representing limited seasonal activity such as pinyon nut harvesting and processing. All of these flaked and ground stone artifacts represent single reduction or processing events.
ERO Project #3987
38
The five historic isolates included two small trash scatters, a concentration of cut beams and nails (most likely representing structural debris), an animal trap, and one rocklined depression of unknown function.
Project Archaeological Assessment

The cultural resource inventory of the Energy Fuels Pinon Mill Project resulted in the documentation of 20 new archaeological sites and 14 isolated finds. Of the sites documented in the project area, four are recommended field eligible and 16 are recommended field not eligible. Isolated finds, by definition, are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Thirteen of the prehistoric sites (5MN8271, 5MN8272, 5MN8273, 5MN8274, 5MN8276, 5MN8277, 5MN8279, 5MN8280, 5MN8281, 5MN8282, 5MN8283, 5MN8285, and 5MN8288) were located prehistoric sites (5MN8269, 5MN8270, 5MN8284, and 5MN8286) were located Site types were defined as open camps if multiple tool classes and/or evidence for diachronic occupation were present; open artifact scatters if the site produced both flaked lithic and ground stone artifacts in a spatially confined area; and an open lithic scatter if flakes and limited stone tool classes were present. Camp locations include sites 5MN8269, 5MN8270, 5MN8274, and 5MN8283; open artifact scatters include sites 5MN8276, 5MN8279, 5MN8286, and 5MN8288; and open lithic scatters include sites 5MN8271-73, 5MN8277, 5MN8280-5MN8282, and 5MN8284-85. Although, site 5MN8271 produced two diagnostically different projectile points, spatial analysis suggests that two separate occupations took place, but were merged together during documentation and ultimately for management purposes. Many of the open lithic scatters are inferred to be probable single-flaked lithic reduction episodes based on the occurrence of a single raw material (or a site that is dominated by one) in a confined area. These sites include 5MN8272, 5MN8273 (at least four separate loci), 5MN8277, and 5MN8280-5MN8282. Archaeological assessment of the findings provides some interesting trends in the material culture assemblage. Flaked lithic raw material is dominated by locally available 39 Four
ERO Project #3987
Dakota orthoquartzite (the classic fine-grained gray material) and other variegated orthoquartzite. Of the 350 flakes collected and subject to analysis, 69% were orthoquartzite. This raw material is presumably derived from the Dakota formation visible near the top of the mesas on either side of Paradox Valley. Chert nodules of varying quality were also noted within the project area, but they were only occasionally tested and/or utilized. Chert is also available from the Dakota and Morrison formations as nodules (Black 2000). Ground stone was also prevalent in the project area, documented on seven of the 20 sites or 35%. Metates were all unshaped sandstone slabs, with predominantly flat to slightly concave use surfaces. Sandstone manos were generally round, one-handed types and about half were either unifacially to bifacially used. Manos also tended to be intentionally shaped indicating increased energy investment and importance. Nonsedimentary raw material was also used for ground stone and tended to be unshaped metate slabs of igneous material or unmodified cobbles. Diagnostic artifacts include 15 projectile points (illustrated under Appendix C-1) and one Uncompahgre brown ware sherd (illustrated under Appendix C-2). Chronological assessment of the projectile points indicates that occupation of the project area took place between the Late Paleoindian through the Late Formative and/or Protohistoric periods. The Late Paleoindian Jimmy Allen point was recovered from a suspect site location (i.e., a small dispersed artifact scatter) and could be either a curated specimen or an isolated occurrence. Uncompahgre brown ware post-dates A.D. 1100 (Reed and Metcalf 1999) and is often associated with Desert side-notch and Cottonwood triangular projectile points. The single sherd from 5MN8274 was located near projectile points attributable to the Archaic period. No single component sites could be definitively identified based solely on the occurrence of diagnostic artifacts.
Management Recommendations
A determination of no historic properties affected, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the NHPA, is recommended for the project area, contingent upon the avoidance of all sites recommended field eligible and upon concurrence by SHPO of all sites 40
ERO Project #3987
recommended field not eligible. Field eligible cultural resources include 5MN8269, 5MN8270, 5MN8284, and 5MN8286. Current development plans will not affect these sites.
ERO Project #3987
41
References Cited
Adams, Jenny L. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Trees. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, ed. Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, pp. 85-118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1. Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Applegarth, Susan and John R. Van Ness 1975 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Survey of the Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose and San Miguel Counties, Colorado. Fort Lewis College. Athearn, Frederic J. 1976 An Isolated Empire: A History of Northwest Colorado. Bureau of Land Management, Denver. Black, Kevin D. 2000 Lithic Sources in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. In Intermountain Archaeology, pp. 132-141, edited by D. B. Madsen and M. D. Metcalf. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, Number 122. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Brunswig, Robert H., Bruce Bradley, and Susan M. Chandler (editors) 1995 Archaeological Pottery of Colorado: Ceramic Clues to the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Lives of the States Native Peoples. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Occasional Papers No. 2. Buckles, William G. 1971 The Uncompahgre Complex: Historic Ute Archaeology and Prehistoric Archaeology of the Uncompahgre Plateau, West Central Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1986 Old Dallas Historical Archaeological Program, Dallas Creek Project. Bureau of Reclamation. Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1-180. Charles, Mona C. and Sally J. Cole 2003 Cultural Variation in Colorado Basketmaker II. Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Chronic, Halka 1986 Roadside Geology of Colorado. Mountain Press Publishing Company,
Missoula, Montana.
ERO Project #3987
42
Cole, Sally 1990
Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. Johnson Books. Boulder, Colorado.
Ellwood, Priscilla B. 2002 Native American Ceramics of Eastern Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado, No. 21. University of Colorado Museum. Frison, George C. 1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, New York. Gilmore, K. P., M. Tate, M. L. Chenault, B. Clark, T. McBride, and M .Wood 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Gruebel, Rand A., Bradford W. Andrews, and Alan D. Reed. 2006 The Weimer Ranch Sites Revisited: Analysis of Materials From a Prehistoric Farming Community in West Central Colorado. Ms. on file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver. 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. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Edited by C.J. Condie and D.D. Fowler, pp. 89-115. University of Utah Anthropology Papers, No. 110. Salt Lake City. Holmer, Richard N. and Dennis G. Weder 1980 Common Post-Archaic Projectile Points of the Fremont Era. In Fremont Perspectives, edited by David B. Madsen, pp. 55-68. Antiquities Section Selected Papers Vol. VII, No. 16 Utah State Historical Society. Salt Lake City. Hunt, Alice 1953 Archaeological Survey of the La Sal Mountain Area, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 14. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Hunt, Alice P. and Dallas Tanner 1960 Early Man Sites Near Moab, Utah. American Antiquity (26)1:110-117. Hurt, Teresa D. and Deni J. Seymour 1999 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. Lone Mountain Archaeological Services. Husted, Wilfred M. and Robert Edgar 2002 The Archaeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: An Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center and Southeast Archeological Center. Special Report No. 4, Technical Reports Series No. 9. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology 5:1, Eastern New Mexico University.
ERO Project #3987
43
Larmore, Sean 2002 McKean Complex Projectile Point Variability: Interaction and Mobility During the Middle Archaic. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Denver. Larmore, Sean, M. Slaughter, D. LaRose, and C. Bevilaqua 2005 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Moab Face Fuels Treatment Project, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. RMC Consultants, Inc., Lakewood, CO. Lipe, William D., Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Madsen, David B. 1979 The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining Prehistoric Agriculturists North of the Anasazi. American Antiquity 44:711-722. McMahon, Todd C. 2007 West Central Colorado Formative Piecing Together the Inter-Connected Culture Puzzle Together. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Society for American Archaeology Conference, Austin, Texas for the symposium: The Weimer Ranch Collections and the Gateway Dataset: Making Sense of Formative Developments on the Northern Anasazi Periphery. McMahon, Todd C. and Ken Bedingfield 2001 Reconnaissance Survey of Sites Near Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose. Metcalf, Michael D. and Kevin D. Black 1991 Archaeological Excavations at the Yarmony Pit House Site, Eagle County, Colorado. Cultural Resource Series No. 31. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Morris, Earl H. and Robert F. Burgh 1954 Basketmaker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 604. Washington, D.C. Mutel, Cornelia F. and John Emerick 1992 From Grassland to Glacier: The Natural History of Colorado and the Surrounding Region. Johnson Printing. Boulder, Colorado. Paulson, Deborah D. and William L. Baker 2006 The Nature of Southwestern Colorado: Recognizing Human Legacies and Restoring Natural Places. University Press of Colorado. Pitblado, Bonnie L. 1998 Peak to Peak in Paleoindian Time: Occupation of Southwest Colorado. Plains Anthropologist: 43(166):333-348. 1999 Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Projectile Points and Land Use in the High Country. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
ERO Project #3987
44
Reed, Alan 1997
The Gateway Tradition: A Formative Stage Culture Unit for East-Central Utah and West-Central Colorado. Southwestern Lore 63(2):19-26.
Reed, Alan and Michael Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Schroedl, A. R. 1976 Archaic of the Northern Colorado Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Schlenker Ph.D., Greg 2007 Personal electronic communication regarding the geomorphology of the project area. Kleinfelder project geologist. Smiley, Francis E. 1995 Lithic Assemblage Structure and Variation Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project 1992-1993 Investigations in Ridges Basin, Colorado. Animas-La Plata Archaeological Project Research Paper No. 2. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region. Steel, Sue 1980 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Cotter Corporation Uranium Lease Tract CJD-7, Paradox Valley Open Pit Project, Montrose County, Colorado. Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Basin Field Office.
Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-79. 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. Tweto, Ogden 1979 Geologic Map of Colorado. United States Geological Survey, Denver. Vierra, Bradley J. 1994 Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies in Northwestern New Mexico. In Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, edited by B.J. Vierra, pp. 121-154. Contributions in Anthropology 13(1). Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.
ERO Project #3987
45
Appendix A: Cultural Resource Tables and Maps

For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18)
ERO Project #3987
Table A-1. Site locations and eligibility.

Smithsonian Number 5MN8269 5MN8270 5MN8271 Site Type Open Camp Sheltered Camp Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Camp Temporal Period Early Archaic to Late Prehistoric Late Formative Late Archaic/Early Formative to Late Formative Late Archaic or Early Formative Unknown Prehistoric Early to Late Archaic/Protohistoric Ute EuroAmerican Late Paleoindian Jimmy Allen Unknown Prehistoric EuroAmerican Middle Archaic Humboldt Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Basketmaker II Late Archaic or Terminal Elko Unknown Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric EuroAmerican Unknown Prehistoric NRHP Eligibility Field Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Eligible Field Not Eligible Field Not Eligible UTM Coordinates (NAD 83) Zone 12
5MN8272 5MN8273 5MN8274
5MN8275 5MN8276 5MN8277 5MN8278 5MN8279 5MN8280 5MN8281 5MN8282 5MN8283 5MN8284 5MN8285 5MN8286 5MN8287 5MN8288
Historic Homestead Open Artifact Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Historic Habitation Open Artifact Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Camp Open Lithic Scatter Open Lithic Scatter Open Artifact Scatter Historic Habitation Open Artifact Scatter
ERO Project #3987
Appendix B: Isolated Finds Tables and Maps

ERO Project #3987
Table B-1. Isolated occurrences located within the project area.

Smithsonian Number 5MN8289 Temp Number PM-IF-1 Description 40 to 50 historic artifacts including 2 clear glass fragments, <7 purple glass fragments, ~20 hole-in-top and sanitary cans, ~11 sardine cans, 2 square gas cans, 1 mug, and 7 handled lard buckets 3 flakes in 1 x 3 meter area Unifacially ground, oblong-shaped mano with dimensions 12 x 10 cm 1 flake 1 retouched chert flake 2 pieces of an aqua glass bottle base, a sign post, and a gas can 2 Dakota orthoquartzite secondary flakes located within a 5 x 2 meter area of a loaf mano of sandstone measuring 12.5 x 8.5 x 5 cm, ground on both sides 7 north-south oriented cut beams (possibly juniper); 2 east-west oriented cut beams, and 2 nails; function unclear Stage 4 biface fragment of quartzite Stage 2 biface fragment of Dakota orthoquartzite Animal trap embossed Newhouse Pat. Dec. 1802, No. 1 Oneida Community NY, located next to an old fenceline; 1 piece of corrugated metal Large ring of rocks with depression in center; rocks are unshaped tabular and large cobbles, all of sandstone; the ring has two openings, one at the northwest side and one at the east side; stone ring is 8.5 m in diameter, center depression is 4.5 to 5 m in diameter, 50-75 cm deep. No artifacts in association with feature. Stage 5 biface midsection of orthoquartzite UTM Coordinates (NAD 83) Zone 12
5MN8290 5MN8291 5MN8292 5MN8293 5MN8294 5MN8295 5MN8296 5MN8297
PM-IF-2 PM-IF-3 PM-IF-4 PM-IF-5 PM-IF-6 PM-IF-7 PM-IF-8 PM-IF-9
5MN8298 5MN8299 5MN8300
PM-IF-10 PM-IF-11 PM-IF-12
5MN8301
PM-IF-13
5MN8302
PM-IF-14
ERO Project #3987
Appendix C: Report Figures
ERO Project #3987
Appendix D: OAHP Site and IF Forms

ERO Project #3987
Appendix E: Evaluative Testing Photos

ERO Project #3987

Pinon Ridge Mill - Redacted Cultural Resources Report Project Area

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pinon Ridge Mill - Redacted Cultural Resources Report Project Area

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE TESTING RESULTS FOR ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES PINON MILL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO

ERO Project #3987

Legal Description of the Project Area

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

Pinon Mill Cultural Resources Survey Report Montrose County, Colorado

Figure 1. Project Location

Prepared for: Kleinfelder File: 3987fig1.pdf November 2007

ERO Project #3987

Figure 2. Project overview photos.

Project area overview of the Paradox Valley floor.

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

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

Site Evaluation Criteria

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

Table 2. Newly documented sites within the project area.

5MN8272 5MN8273 5MN8274

PM04 PM05 PM06

Baseline Documentation Collected/Trenched Collected/Trenched

5MN8285 5MN8286 5MN8287 5MN8288

PM17 PM18 PM19 PM20

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

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

This site was not collected.

ERO Project #3987

The largest concentration of artifacts is located east and north

ERO Project #3987

Vegetation is big sagebrush reddish tan silty loess.

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

Project Archaeological Assessment

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

ERO Project #3987

Cole, Sally 1990

ERO Project #3987