HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-WesternArcheologicalReptREPORT ON THE FILE SEARCH AND THE CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE
INVENTORY FOR A SENSITIVE STUDY AREA FOR THE ENTERPRISE MID -
AMERICA PIPELINE WESTERN EXPANSION II PROJECT IN GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
WAS PROJECT # 11 -WAS -071
Submitted to the Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County, Colorado
By
Robert Ficenec
Stacy Goodrick
Jana Pastor
with contributions by
Tracy Hall
Colorado Bureau of Land Management
Permit Number: C-39473
Western Archaeological Services
1600 Dewar Drive
Rock Springs, WY 82901
March 14, 2012
ABSTRACT
Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline (Enterprise MAPL) proposes to construct the Western
Expansion Project II (WEP II) pipeline in eastern Utah and northwestern Colorado. The 95.47 mile
long pipeline route closely parallels one or more existing pipelines for nearly 99% of its entire
length. The proposed pipeline departs Thompson Station in Grand County, Utah, and proceeds
northeasterly along the southern margin of the Interstate 70 corridor to Harley Dome, then parallels
Highway 6/50 to a point 8 miles northwest of Mack, Colorado. The pipeline then continues
northeasterly to West Salt Creek and follows Baxter Pass Road through the West Salt Creek canyon
of Mesa and Garfield Counties to the former railroad town of Atchee. The pipeline continues
northwesterly through Railroad Canyon, crossing Baxter Pass, and then follows Baxter Pass Road
through the Evacuation Creek and West Evacuation Creek canyons of Garfield and Rio Blanco
Counties, Colorado, and Uinta County, Utah, to where it ties into Dragon Station 1 mile north of the
former mining town of Dragon, Utah.
The study is for a linear ROW route of 24.66 miles, 1.59 miles of access road (14.27 linear
acres on BLM and 16.23 linear acres on private), and 33.7 block areas (7.73 block acres on BLM and
25.97 block acres on private) in Garfield County. These are situated within the northern portion of
the Colorado Plateau, and are located along West Salt Creek and West Evacuation Creek within the
Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau regions. The project lies in Sections 5, 6, 8,16,17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 33,
34, and 35, T5WS, R103W, Sections 13, 24, 25, 26, and 35, T6S, R104W, Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 14,
23, 26, 27, and 34, T7S, R104W, and Sections 3, 9, 10, 15, and 16, T8S, R104W. This work was
undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with county, state, and federal laws and regulations
governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privately owned lands that will
be affected by a government action. This work was performed under BLM Permit No. C-39473. The
purpose of the cultural resources investigation was to identify previously recorded resources within
or near the project area that may be adversely affected by the proposed action as part of the Class I,
to inventory the proposed pipeline route to a width of 200 feet (60m), to inventory the 14 TUAS and
10 Access Roads, and to evaluate those resources identified. Within Garfield County, a total of 603
acres (262.2 BLM and 340.8 private) was subject to an intensive (Class III) inventory. The Class
I file search was conducted at the Grand Junction Field Office on May 13, May 16, and August 17,
2011, at the White River Field Office on August 2 and 3, 2011. The Class III inventory was
conducted from June 14 and 16, and August 11 to September 1, 2011, with additional site
recordation and view shed analysis conducted between September 8 and October 13, 2011. The
report preparation was conducted between October 25, 2011 and January 27, 2012. As a result 97
sites have been previously recorded within a mile of the project area, with 23 previously recorded
sites and 9 newly recorded sites documented by the intensive inventory. Accordingly, a
determination of effect for the project is will be determined by the BLM pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).
INTRODUCTION
This inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with state and federal
legislation governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privately owned lands
that will be affected by a government action. It was done to meet requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq., as amended), and Article
80.1, Colorado Revised Statutes. These laws are concerned with the identification, evaluation, and
protection of fragile, non-renewable evidence of human activity, occupation, and endeavor reflected
in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features
that were of importance in human events. Such resources tend to be localized and highly sensitive
to disturbance. All work was performed according to guidelines set forth by the Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) of the Colorado Historical Society.
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed 95.47 mile long WEP II pipeline route departs Thompson Station in Grand
County, Utah and proceeds northeasterly along the southern margin of the Interstate 70 corridor to
Harley Dome, then parallels Highway 6/50 to a point 8 miles northwest of Mack, Colorado (Figure
1). The pipeline then continues northeasterly to West Salt Creek and follows Baxter Pass Road
through the West Salt Creek canyon of Mesa and Garfield Counties to the former railroad town of
Atchee. The pipeline continues northwesterly through Railroad Canyon, crossing Baxter Pass, and
then follows Baxter Pass Road through the Evacuation Creek and West Evacuation Creek canyons
of Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Uinta County, Utah, to where it ties into Dragon
Station 1 mile north of the former mining town of Dragon, Utah. The route through Garfield County
is depicted in (Figures 2-8).
MODERN ENVIRONMENT
The proposed WEP II Pipeline traverses a several environmental settings along its 95.47 mile
long route, but is contained entirely within the northern portion of the Colorado Plateau
physiographic unit. The Colorado Plateau, with its mountains, desert basins, and arid woodlands and
grasslands, encompasses the southern Four Corners region of the Intermountain West (southeast
Utah, southwest Colorado, northwest New Mexico, and northeast Arizona). It is located west of the
Rocky Mountains in a region of generally flat lying sedimentary rock. Although the plateau has been
bowed and buckled as a result of the collisions of continental plates that created the Sierra Nevada
and Rocky Mountains, the sedimentary rocks remains relatively horizontal (Chronic and Williams
2002:293).
The entire Colorado Plateau is located within the Colorado River drainage basin, with major
rivers such as the Colorado, Little Colorado, San Juan, and Escalante rivers, as well as numerous
smaller rivers and streams crossing the plateau. The numerous tributaries of the Colorado River
have carved numerous steep sided canyons throughout the region. Folds and faults in many places
have blocked the drainages, and have forced them to detour or cut through the hard underlying
2
Precambrian age rocks. Although the Plateau is an area characterized by relatively high elevations,
the faults and folds have also resulted a wide range of elevations. The mean elevation on the Plateau
is 1,936 meters (6,352 feet), but the elevational range of Plateau includes canyon bottoms at less than
750 meters (2,461 feet) and mountain peaks a staggering 3,840 meters (12,600 feet) above sea level.
The Colorado Plateau is an arid to semi -arid region made largely up of deserts, with scattered
areas of forests in the mountainous regions. In summer, the Plateau region receives limited moisture
primarily as intense, local thunderstorms, with limited moisture arriving in the fall and winter as
large frontal systems. The climate of most of the Colorado Plateau is classified as semi -arid, with
total annual precipitation approximately 250 mm, with drier areas in the southern portion receiving
as little as 130 mm, and higher elevations around the perimeter of the Plateau receiving as much as
670 mm (Hereford et al. 2002). Winters are cold, with moisture corning from the Gulf of Alaska and
Pacific Ocean to the north and west. Summers are warm to hot, with a distinct wet period
characterized by intermittent but often intense monsoonal storms coming from the eastern tropical
Pacific, the Gulf of California, and the Gulf of Mexico (Adams and Comrie 1997, Barlow et al.
1998). Near Moab, Utah, in the heart of the Colorado Plateau, total average annual precipitation is
approximately equal to the Great Basin desert to the north and the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts
to the south. Both winter and summer precipitation are highly variable from year to year and has
been linked to El Nino and La Nina patterns (Harrington et al. 1992, Hereford and Webb 1992,
Cayan et al. 1999, Cook et al. 2007). La Nina is generally associated with dry winters, while El Nino
usually leads to increased cool -season precipitation (Hereford et al. 2002).
The Colorado Plateau is located primarily the Upper Sonoran and Transition life zones, but
also has Canadian, Hudsonian, and Arctic -Alpine life zones at the highest elevations. In the
subalpine regions of the tallest peaks, Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa) are common. With decreasing elevation, these communities transition into a
mixed -conifer forest with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir (Abies concolor), Colorado
blue spruce (Picea pungens), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Between 2100 and 1600
meters, pinyon/juniper woodlands dominate (Pinus edulis, Juniperus osteosperma, and on the
southern edge of the Plateau, J. monosperma). The lower lying areas occupying most of the
Colorado Plateau, is a mixed desert scrub community comprised of mostly low shrubs and perennial
grasses. Sagebrush species (Artemisia tridentata, A. tridentata ssp. vaseyena, A. wyomingensis) are
found at the higher ranges of the shrub land. At lower elevations, the dominant plants include
blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), Mormon tea (Ephedra viridis and E. torreyana), saltbush
(Atriplex canescens, A. confertifolia and A. garrettii), and winterfat (Ceratoides lanata). The grass
species of the Colorado Plateau include Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) and needle -and -thread
grass (S. comata) and the Bouteloua gracilis, B. eriopoda, Sporobolus cryptandrus S. airoides, and
galleta (Hilaria jamesii).
Although the summer and winter precipitation amounts are similar, winter precipitation
largely determines total annual primary productivity among perennials (Caldwell 1985). Winter
precipitation accumulates in the soil due to the low evaporative demand and low transpiration rates
at that time of the year. Plants begin to use these soil moisture reserves in early March, when plant
growth is triggered by warmer temperatures. By late June, the driest month of the year, reserves of
winter soil moisture near the soil surface are largely depleted and shallow -rooted perennial plants
go dormant, whereas deeper -rooted plants take up residual water from deeper in the soil profile.
Summer precipitation from late July to mid-September usually creates only limited soil moisture that
can only be used by plant species with active, shallow root system such as the various grasses and
late summer annuals.
3
Species of non -domesticated fauna of economic importance to both historic and prehistoric
people in the Colorado Plateau. Bison evidently once occupied the project area (Burt and
Grossenheider 1976), though probably in relatively low numbers (Meaney and Van Vuren 1993).
Important Artiodactyla include elk, big horn sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn. Although pronghorn
were probably most abundant in the open spaces of the Grand Valley of west -central Colorado,
modern distributions may not accurately reflect their former range. Cottontail species occur in nearly
all habitats, with jack rabbits and prairie dogs prevalent in open areas at lower elevations. Common
predators included coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, and formerly grizzly bear, lynx, river
otter, and wolf. Various rodents, reptiles, fish, and birds were also of economic importance, with
numerous types abundant in the project area.
For descriptive purposes, the portion of the pipeline located in northwestern Colorado is
divided into two physiographic units, including the Mancos Shale Lowlands section, and the Books
Cliff -Roan Plateau Section.
Mancos Shale Lowlands Section
The Mancos Shale Lowland section extends east of Utah's San Rafael Swell to the vicinity
of Palisade, Colorado, following the base of the Book Cliffs (Horn et al. 1998d:8). Cretaceous -aged
Mancos shale forms the bedrock in the central portion of the section. These soils were laid down
over within the inland Mancos Sea. The Manco Sea advanced and retreated numerous times, laying
down layers of salty soil which developed into the Mancos Shale formation which range to as much
as 4,150 feet thick. The resulting clayey soils of the majority of the Grand Valley developed from
these Mancos shale deposits. Alluvial soils occur along the intermittent streams that emanate in the
Book Cliffs, and on the Roan Plateau, and flow southwards to the Colorado River. Alkaline soils
are widely distributed, and as a result, desert shrubs such as shadscale, salt bush, and greasewood
dominated the floral community. Scattered juniper, sagebrush expanses, and grasslands occur in the
higher elevations at the base of the Book Cliffs.
Elevations along the pipeline corridor in the Mancos Shale Lowlands generally range
between 4400 ft (1341 meters) and 4900 ft (1493 meters). Because of its low elevation, the section
is comparatively warm and dray. Climatic data from Fruita, Colorado, near the project pipeline
indicate that mean maximum temperatures are 66.5° F, mean minimum temperature is 34° F. The
Fruita area receives an average of 223 mm of precipitation per year, with approximately 38 cm of
snow falling each year.
Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau Section
Just inside Colorado in the Grand Valley, the proposed WEP H Pipeline turns northward
along West Salt Creek to cross the Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau. The Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau extend
from the Mancos Shale Lowlands northward to the Uinta Basin and encompass the northern portion
of the proposed pipeline. The Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau are largely composed of Cretaceous -aged
sedimentary materials, with the uppermost layer consisting of the Mesa Verde Sandstone formation,
which overlies the Mancos Shale formation. The deposits include buff to yellowish -brown
sandstone bedded with soft gray shale that has one or more beds of bituminous coal, and underlying,
thick beds of sandstone. The Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau is comprised of an uplifted syncline or
structural depression, elevated approximately 3000 ft (914 meters) above the Grand Valley (Horn
et al. 1998d:8). The south end of the section has been lifted the highest, forming a cuesta-like
4
feature that dips to the north. The ruggcd south side drops in two major cliffs. the higher Roan
Cliffs. and the lower Book Cliffs. The north sloping plateau on top of the section is the Tavaputs
Plateau. Elevations of the Tavaputs Plateau exceed 8000 ft (2438 meters), and in places 9000 ft
(2743 meters). The proposed pipeline crosses Baxter Pass at an elevation of 8422 ft.
The Book Cliffs -Roan Plateau section is drained to the south by the Colorado River and its
tributaries. with the northern portion drained to the north and west by the White River. Because of
the high elevation, surface water is relatively abundant, with numerous springs and permanent small
creeks. At 8600ft, the annual precipitation is approximately 648 mrn, with much of the precipitation
occurring in the form of snow. Snowfall may exceed 100 inches (Grady 1980). Vegetation in the
section is closely tied to the elevation. Lower elevations support stands of pinyon pine and juniper,
often with a sagebrush understory. Higher elevations support Gambel oak, service berry, and
mountain mahogany, with aspen and pine forests located at the highest elevations. with a sagebrush
or snow berry understory.
PREVIOUS WORE AND CULTURE HISTORY
Summary of Previous Work
The file searches were conducted Robert Ficenec and Tracy Hall of WAS at the Grand
Junction Field Office on May 13. May 16, and August 17. 201 I, and at the. White River Field Office
on August 2 and 3, 2011. The base topographic maps at the BLM offices were examined to
detennine which previous projects and previously documented sites were located within one mile
of the project area, with the on-line database on COMPASS examined to provide additional survey
and site information not available at the BLM field offices, Government Land Office Maps (GLOs)
were examined to look for historic resources in the project area Several linear sites were noted and
are discussed below. The data and literature review focused on identifying sites and cultural
resource investigations that had been conducted within a 1 mile wide arca centered on the proposed
WEP 11 pipeline route.
This review identified 160 reports that have been done in the general area, which are listed
in Table 1. The files search indicated 99 cultural resources occur within about one mile of the study
area (Table 2).
Culture History
Prehistoric Period
Advances in our knowledge of the prehistory of the northwestern Colorado and eastem Utah
have come about through the systematic collection of data over a number of years. Academic and
cultural resource management research has incrementally expanded our insight into prehistoric
lifewuys and led to more focused research.
The WAS research model begins with intra -site studies, focusing on the identification of
specific activity areas within specific occupations. The next analytical level examines the use ofthe
landscape. Since the advent ot'the "New Archaeology" in the 1960s. the dominant paradigm has
stressed theinvestigation of behavioral and formational systems underlying the organization of the
archaeological record (Willey and SablotT 1980:186; Dunne!! 1980:38). Topographic location,
season of occupation. and function of activity areas all give insights into the aboriginal decision-
making process and the organizational systems which are part of the larger settlement and
5
subsistence system. Additionally, studying diachronic changes provides data pertinent to
technological innovation and cultural adaptation.
Different site types have been defined that are ubiquitous across the landscape and are
relatively unchanged through thousands of years. Examples of this pattern were found during the
excavations of sites along the MAPCO Rocky Mountain Expansion Pipeline (Horn, Fetterman, and
Honeycutt 2003). Sites 5GF620 and 5RB950 both revealed multiple cultural components dating from
the Archaic to the Formative eras with evidence of short term hunting activities.
Different adaptation strategies produce a variety of site types, such as residential camps of
long or short duration, temporary camps, kill and/or processing sites, other extraction sites, and
hunting stands. A major distinguishing characteristic between these site types was the duration of
occupation and how the length of occupation affected the content and patterning of material remains.
The study of intra -site variation was used as a means of building a framework to characterize
regional patterns of land use. Identifying changes in regional patterns is critical to understanding the
prehistoric utilization of the landscape through time. As Binford noted, "to reconstruct the entire
pattern of land use, archaeologists have to be able first to identify the specific function of each
separate site and then to fit all the individual parts together" (1983:131-132). Binford's (1980)
observations showing that hunter -gatherers organize along a continuum of strategies between two
extremes, foraging and collecting, have laid the groundwork for much debate in archaeology. This
forager -collector model and others of a similar nature (e.g. Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982) provide
the archaeologist with a powerful set of tools for interpreting archaeological remains.
In addition to organizational and mobility models, approaches that measure energy costs have
utility in the study of subsistence. Derived from optimal foraging theory, these models are used to
assess the practicality of hypothesized subsistence strategies. When evidence of resource use in the
archaeological record is encountered, archaeologists construct simple models of resource use. These
models can then be tested and refined through the use of ideas drawn from diet breadth and other
optimal foraging -based models. By assessing things like potential caloric yields and estimating time
and transport costs, one can test the practicality of these resource -use models. Often, an assumption
concerning the use of a certain resource or food will prove to be flawed once a practical measure of
its utility is applied.
The ordering of archaeological material into an accurate regional chronology is paramount
to the understanding of prehistory in an area. Cultural complexes are defined mainly on the basis
of artifact assemblages recovered in high -integrity components. Like most regions, early researchers
in northwest Colorado and northeast Utah utilized the cultural chronologies from the more -studied
surrounding areas but as the understanding of the archaeological records grows, chronologies have
been refined. The northwest Colorado cultural chronology was originally defined by Reed and
Metcalf (1999) and recently revised by the same authors (Metcalf and Reed 2010).
Paleoindian Era
The Paleoindian era is the oldest for which there is solid archaeological evidence. It begins
at roughly 13,400 B.P. and ends around 8350 B.P. This is the transition period from the periglacial
conditions of the Wisconsin ice advance during the terminal Pleistocene to the warmer and drier
climatic conditions of the Holocene. Lush grasslands and savanna -like conditions predominated,
with notably higher precipitation than today. This increased biomass supported a variety of large
herbivore such as the mammoth, horse, camel, and extinct forms of bison.
The lithic technology of the Paleoindian period is distinctive for its meticulous workmanship
in the manufacture of projectile points. Projectile point styles are distinctive and serve as
6
chronological/cultural indicators within the period. Projectile points are usually lanceolate, some
have distinct shoulders or stemmed, basally ground hafting elements, but they lack notching evident
in the later periods. Paleoindian tool assemblages are characterized by a high percentage of gravers
and spurred end-scrapers, and burination, especially on broken projectile point fragments (Frison
1978:77-78). More variation with the projectile point styles is seen after about 10,000 B.P., perhaps
representing the presence of diversified cultural groups during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Much of the data from the Paleoindian period was initially derived from sites on the
Northwestern Plains, most of which are specialized bison kills or sites associated with large game
procurement. Preservation played a large role in the interpretation of the Paleoindian focus on large
game. Perishable items do not stand the test of time like robust faunal elements. Also, large bone
beds are much more visible resulting in their identification and investigation. However, as work
progresses researchers are recognizing that early Americans had a wide and varied diet and
generalized subsistence strategy, and a variety of plant and animal remains are being found in older
sites (Kornfeld 2008).
In the Great Basin, a far different picture of the early inhabitants has emerged. The term
Paleoindian is not widely used, primarily because what little subsistence data are available suggest
that these peoples were essentially broad-spectrum foragers who did not rely on Pleistocene
megafuana and were more similar to foragers of the following Archaic period (Madsen 2007). The
Paleoarchaic foragers were characterized by small, mobile foraging groups tethered to marsh
ecosystems associated with terminal Pleistocene lakes. Pleistocene megafauna were not the primary
focus but instead, they subsisted on fish, seeds, plants, and small mammals. Large mammals were
comprised of antelope and species commonly found in Archaic assemblages.
In the study area, the Paleoindian era is represented by four traditions that can be
distinguished largely on the basis of projectile point styles. These traditions include the Clovis,
Goshen, Folsom, and Foothill/Mountain. Projectile point characteristic of the Clovis tradition are
large, fluted, finely-made lanceolate points. Clovis points have been found in association with
extinct megafauna. Although Pleistocene megafauna remains have been identified in northwest
Colorado or northeast Utah, no Clovis artifacts have been found with these remains (Schroedl 1991).
The Goshen tradition has been a controversial concept until recently, and was first thought
to be a variant of Clovis. Excavation at the Mill Iron site (Frison 1978) eliminated much of the
uncertainty of Goshen's relationship with Clovis and Folsom. Many Goshen points bear a strong
resemblance to the Plainview type as it is known from the Southern Plains. The points are basally
thinned and not fluted. The Goshen tradition dates between 12,950 and 12,650 B.P.
Folsom projectile points are widespread on the Plains and in the Rockies. Folsom projectile
points are finely made with the highest quality pressure flaking techniques. The specimens can be
fluted or unfluted. An extensive Folsom assemblage (10,500 B.P.) was found at the Barger Gulch
Locality B in Middle Park (Korneld et al. 2010). The assemblages included broken finished and
exhausted projectile points, scrapers, gravers, ultrathin bifaces, Levallois-like cores, concentrations
of burned specimens suggesting hearth locations, several types of activity areas, and dwellings.
The Foothill-Mountain tradition favored more hunting and gathering subsistence in foothill
and mountain slope areas and were more Archaic in terms of subsistence strategies (Kornfeld et al.
2010). These people procured deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn as well as exploiting floral
resources. The projectile points are unfluted and exhibit a lanceolate shape with restricted stems and
indented bases. Kornfeld et al. (2010) argue that there is now sufficient data to support the concept
of a dichotomy in subsistence strategies between plains and foothill-mountains ecosystems that
varied in intensity throughout prehistoric times. In Pitblado's study of Paleoindian projectile points
7
from western Colorado, she notes that there is extensive evidence of the Foothill -Mountain tradition
(Pitblado 1994). She argues that the generalist subsistence practices indicate a closer cultural affinity
with Great Basin Paleoindian groups.
Site 42GR1547 is located along the currently proposed WEPII pipeline. The site was
subjected to data recovery excavations during the MAPCO, Rocky Mountain Expansion Project
(Horn, Fetterman, and Honeycutt 2003). The site dates to between 9550 and 9270 B.P. Surface
artifacts included Elko Eared and McKean Lanceolate projectile points. Cultural material recovered
during excavation was sparse and included debitage, scraping tools, and gravers. Site interpretations
were limited because of the paucity of cultural remains, however, paleoenvironmental studies
revealed a cool, dry environment, with mesic species. Cottonwood Creek was flowing water within
a riparian environment. The Cisco Desert is now an arid shrubland with sparse vegetation. Site data
suggests that cultural manifestations are similar to those found in the northern Colorado Plateau.
Research questions for the Paleoindian era are plentiful because of the paucity of investigated
sites dating to this time period. The Clovis and Goshen traditions are still largely enigmatic because
the site sample is so low. The boundary between the Foothill -Mountain tradition and the following
Archaic era is becoming more and more blurred as it appears that an "Archaic" lifestyle was
practiced much earlier than previously thought. Paleoenvironmental changes have been suggested
by previous excavations at Site 42GR1547. More information is needed to fully understand the
environmental conditions present during this time period. Interrelationships between the Colorado
Plateau, Plains, and Great Basin groups needs further study as well. Any sites with even minimal
information would be of importance to our understanding of this era.
Archaic Era
During the Archaic era there was more intensive utilization of plant foods and exploitation
of a broader range of fauna than in the preceding Paleoindian era. The Archaic is recognized as
reflective of highly mobile groups who left an overlapping labyrinth of cultural remains on the
landscape. There is a great deal of cultural continuity during this time span with a series of cultural
changes. The high mobility was a defining factor in subsistence -settlement practices. Small groups
of a single family or extended family moved as resources became available. Their intimate
knowledge of resource patches, seasonality, and availability dictated their deliberate movements
across the landscape. This logistical system included brief stops in some areas and more extended
stays in others depending on resource availability.
Reed and Metcalf (1999) defined four "periods" within the Archaic era based on changes in
adaptive strategies through time. These included the Pioneer period, characterized by the
establishment of full-time seasonally scheduled settlement systems in all of the major basins; the
Settled period which saw a fluorescence of locally oriented populations within a central -place
foraging strategy centered on predictable winter habitation areas; the Transitional period,
characterized by increasing variability in settlement patterns and less sedentary habitations; and the
Terminal period which featured early experimentation with various forms of resource intensification
to cope with apparent stress in settlement systems (Reed and Metcalf 1999:79).
The utility of the archaeological units proposed by Reed and Metcalf in 1999 has been
questioned and in 2010 Metcalf chose to drop the periods in favor of the terms Paleo-Archaic,
Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic. In the Class I overview of the Grand Junction Field Office, the
Archaic was divided into four periods referred to as Paleo-Archaic, Early, Middle and Late by Berry
(2011). As work progresses and more data becomes available, the utility of sub -dividing the era (e.g.
8
Metcalf 2010 and Berry 2011) or following the Stiger (2001) example of viewing the Archaic as an
overall period without use of sub -divisions, will continue to be examined and refined.
The Metcalf and Reed (2010) revision lists six adaptive periods with associated trait lists.
Interwoven in the adaptive periods are "anomalies" which represent disruptions to the stable adaptive
pattern. The trait list is meant to be an indicator of the data available at the present time. The
earliest adaptive period (Adaptive Period 1) occurs between 9000-9500 B.P. Diagnostic artifacts are
few, with the exception of Deception Creek points. The climate is cool and moist and faunal
material includes medium artiodactyls and small mammals. There appears to be high mobility and
simple basin hearths are utilized.
Adaptive Period 2 is characterized by the appearance of the first house pits, roasting pits, and
Elko Corner -notched projectile points. The period falls between 8400 and 7900 B.P. and the climate
is warmer and drier than the previous period. Small mammals are dominant with evidence of ground
stone use for plant processing.
Adaptive Period 3 begins at 7200 and ends at 5800 B.P. The xeric conditions during this
period led to the aggradation of sediment. House pits are utilized and the faunal remains are
dominated by medium artiodactyls. Elk, Northern and Narrow Series side -notched points appear
early in this period. There appears to be more sedentism with longer duration occupations.
Adaptive Period 4 ranges from 5200 to 3900 B.P. It appears that house pit use had ceased
as a consistent pattern by about 4900 B.P. (Metcalf 2010:31). McKean style projectile points appear
at about 5000 B.P. The climate experienced a change to cooler than today and the "Spring Creek
paleosol" develops. Metcalf (2010) suggests that during the coolest part of this interval the area
became too cold to continuously support winter occupations, but at the same time the relatively more
mesic conditions supported higher game populations and the seasonal emphasis may have become
warm season oriented. The neoglacial cooling would have also affected medium artiodactyl
populations and rabbits likely would have gained importance.
By Adaptive Period 5 (3600-2500 B.P.), house pits no longer appear in the archaeological
record. There appears to be an increase of large artiodactyls in the faunal record. Ground stone
declines in the later part of the period and projectile points demonstrate great diversity. The period
starts with a warmer interval and then experiences neoglacial cooling (Metcalf 2010).
Adaptive Period 6 is the last interval in the Archaic era and dates between 2200-1800 B.P.
Rabbits increase in importance and there is some evidence of rodent use. Roasting pits decline and
there is a lack of ground stone. The climate continues to be cool.
As in the Wyoming Basin, there are two areas of research that are very intriguing during the
Archaic era. These research areas include the presence and use of house pits and the presence of
"McKean" style projectile points.
House Pits
There is a decided lack of house pits between 4800-4100 and 3600-2500 B.P. and in
Colorado Plateau. Because the distribution of house pits is highly patterned temporally, Metcalf
postulates that they reflect a subsistence and mobility pattern that is archaeological distinctive and
appears when conditions make it an effective solution (Metcalf 2010:19). As in the Wyoming Basin,
the perception of the distribution of house pits may change as additional houses are discovered. Cold
weather environments require some protection from the elements (Gilman 1987) and it stands to
reason that some sort of structure was used throughout the prehistory of the Colorado Plateau. The
remains of different types of structures may not leave an archaeological signature or environmental
conditions operating at certain times may have obscured the evidence. There are a large number of
9
unresolved questions about prehistoric house pits including aspects of construction, use,
maintenance, season of occupation, duration of occupation, variability of house types, identification
of house pits, the role of storage, and implications for mobility, and other questions that remain
important in house pit studies.
A cultural component at Site 42GR1548 (Cisco Inferno) contained a small house pit structure
with post holes that dated to between 2660 and 2500 B.P. The abundance of greasewood charcoal
indicated a superstructure of greasewood. The small size of the house pit indicated a spring,
summer, or fall use. A similar house pit site is located to the east of 42GR1548 near the state line.
Site 5GF126 is slightly larger and contained post holes (Horn, Fetterman, and Honeycutt, 2003).
House pits dating to any time period with good integrity will result in data recovery.
McKean
The McKean Complex on the Northwestern Plains first occurred during the Middle Archaic
and is characterized by a shift in subsistence patterns as compared to the preceding Early Plain
Archaic period. The bison -oriented subsistence strategy also includes a shift towards an increased
reliance on gathering and processing plant foods as compared to earlier periods. (Kornfeld and Todd
1985; Frison 1991). The complex is defined by McKean Lanceolate, Duncan, Hanna, and Mallory
projectile points (Kornfeld et al. 2010). These style points are widespread across the Wyoming
Basin and Colorado Plateau, as well as the Northwest Plains. The McKean complex appears to have
developed into a well-established endemic cultural tradition in the Big Horn Basin, whereas in
southwest Wyoming and northwest Colorado the appearance of these projectile point styles is
problematic. The underlying question is, did these point styles appear in the context of an adaptation
by local Archaic groups or did McKean groups occasionally occupy the Colorado Plateau during the
Middle Archaic, much like McNees (2005) postulates for southwest Wyoming?
Schriever (2010) accurately notes that the only unifying aspect of the McKean Complex is
the point style, and possibly the observation that most sites with McKean material are camps
interpreted as broad-spectrum forager sites. Very little comprehensive analyses have been completed
on McKean components which makes any assumptions premature. Metcalf (2010) poses five
research questions which include:
Is the McKean Complex a useful construct for describing the Middle Archaic in northwestern
Colorado?
Are there any data to support the idea that there is a temporal sequence for the introduction
of the individual McKean point types (Lanceolate, Duncan, and Hanna)?
Is there a correlation between the occurrence of McKean points and the hunting of big game?
Does the presence of reliable populations of bison correlate with McKean distributions?
Does the presence of McKean points indicate a relatively mobile hunting -focused economy?
Metcalf concludes by stating that although the McKean Complex remains a useful construct
for discussion of the Middle Archaic, at this time there is simply not enough data to determine the
cultural dynamics at play during this time period. A McKean style projectile point was found on the
surface at Site 42GR1547. Further studies of cultural components containing McKean style
projectile points are needed.
10
Archaic Settlement and Subsistence
At a general level, the forager/collector spectrum provides a model with which to compare
the settlement and subsistence patterns during the Archaic era. But it can be assumed that placement
on the spectrum would vary through space, time, and probably season for even the same cultural
group. At certain times we would expect foraging for a wide range of roots, seeds, greens, small
game and occasional large game. At other times a logistical orientation targeting large game and
specific resources would have been used. It must be recognized that the subsistence strategy being
practiced at any time was fluid, responding to a number of cultural and natural variables.
Nonetheless, there are broad patterns in settlement and subsistence that can be elucidated in
the archaeological record. The detailed settlement -subsistence model described in an earlier section
presents a working model of a general Archaic -Late Prehistoric annual round. This model needs
refinement for particular periods and locations in the region.
The inability to identify indicators of seasonality in the archaeological record is a major
impediment to understanding prehistoric settlement, subsistence, sedentism, and mobility.
Archaeofaunal data provide good potential for seasonality information based on seasonal increments
in animal tissues plus ages of animals born in discrete seasons. These can be measured with tooth
eruption and wear, bone metrics, bone epiphyseal fusion, dental cementum increment analysis, and
other methods. The presence of seasonally -limited plant remains has also proven useful. The
potential effect of storage for future consumption can obfuscate the meaning of seasonality data, and
this is an area in need of investigation.
Although settlement -subsistence evidence is limited for the Archaic era, it exhibits variability
in the spatial and temporal distribution of different types of cultural remains, guided by
environmental conditions. Environmental conditions ranging from the dry, hot Altithermal to the
wetter, moister Neoglacial affected both floral and faunal communities, with obvious impacts on the
human population.
Sites dating to any age containing evidence of seasonality are important to our understanding
of the settlements -subsistence patterns at work during the prehistoric period of the Colorado Plateau.
Topics of interest also include: a) species identification; b) study of extractive technology; c)
estimation of mobility patterns; d) settlement analysis; and e) synchronic and diachronic
comparisons. Specific questions include how evolutionary ecology models and Binford's (1980)
model of hunter/gatherer organizational systems can be applied to settlement and subsistence
evidence from sites in the project area, across the range of functions and ages that are likely to
become evident.
Early Archaic sites dating from 9500 B.P. and 4700 B.P. are relatively rare and thus good
candidates for data recovery. Our knowledge of the transition from the Paleoindian to the Archaic
era is limited and the changes in subsistence and settlement patterns need to be further defined. The
later part of the Archaic era is not as well represented in the Colorado Plateau as in the Green River
Basin to the north but there is more information available than during the early part of the era. Sites
with high quality spatial integrity would be candidates for data recovery.
Formative Era
The Formative era in the region originally extended from 2350 B.P. to 650 B.P. (Reed and
Metcalf 1999:98) and refers to the period when corn was a major subsistence focus in some portions
of western Colorado (Jett 1991; Stiger and Larson 1992). However, farming is not a necessary trait
for inclusion into the Formative era in the Colorado Plateau. The higher elevations were limited in
their agricultural potential due to their short growing season, and other areas lacked the water and
11
soils required for viable horticulture. Consequently, horticulture, sedentism, and mobile hunting and
gathering occurred contemporaneously, often separated only by elevation or precipitation barriers.
Substantial habitation structures and pottery becomes common with the more sedentary groups.
Reed (2010a:20) proposes the term as an "archaeological unit as reference for sites contemporaneous
with farming adaptations". The Formative Era is broken down into the Gateway, Aspen, Anasazi,
and Fremont traditions and includes the introduction of the bow-and-arrow, habitation structures,
ceramics, and horticulture and is characterized by a spike in radiocarbon data.
The Anasazi Tradition (1100-900 B.P.) is usually found toward the southern portion of the
Northern Colorado River Basin where irrigation agriculture was viable. Anasazi groups relied
heavily on corn beans, squash, and several other cultigens, and produced high-quality ceramics.
Anasazi sites are distinguished by substantial rock structures, pottery, and rock art styles.
No Anasazi sites exhibiting typical habitation structures have been documented in the project
area. However, rock art sites attributed to the Anasazi and Anasazi-style ceramics have been noted
in the general area (Cole 1987; Reed and Metcalf 1999:98) These have been attributed to Anasazi
forays into the area or to trade and/or influence of Anasazi culture on other peoples. In general, there
does not appear to be a bona fide Anasazi occupation in northwestern Colorado. Farther to the south
and southwest of the project area are the Northern San Juan Anasazi.
The Gateway Tradition (2350-750 B.P.) is a generalized horticultural tradition reflecting local
adaptations with limited reliance on corn, beans, and squash in the interior basins and foothills where
soil, moisture and growing seasons were adequate. Pottery was manufactured, but was also traded
for with adjacent Anasazi and Fremont groups. Masonry surface structures were built, and granaries
and storage cists often occur in rock shelters. Gateway Tradition rock art was influenced by Anasazi
and Fremont styles. The tradition saw the introduction of the bow and arrow during the early part
of the period, which used the small, corner-notched projectile points of the Rosegate series.
The 1984 context for west-central Colorado suggests that Formative-groups were best
classified as distinct from either Fremont or Anazazi traditions. Reed (1997) agreed with the idea
that there are enough distinct qualities to justify separation and posited the Gateway tradition. Others
like McMahon (1997), believe that most of those sites could and should be regarded as Fremont.
Gateway tradition sites with substantial masonry architecture, evidence of corn, small quantities of
Anasazi ceramics, and that date to between approximately 2350-750 B.P. do not appear to have a
very useful application in the project area. The Gateway Tradition is a recent archaeological unit
and, as the database of sites continues to grow in the region, it may be useful to further differentiate
the various cultural resources in the area.
The Fremont Tradition (800-600 B.P.) is also characterized by substantial structures, high-
quality ceramics, and a reliance on corn, beans, and squash agriculture. It is found in the western
portion of the Northern Colorado River Basin at the lower elevations where soils, moisture, and
growing seasons are adequate. It is distinguished from the Anasazi by distinctive structure, pottery,
basketry, and rock art styles.
To the northwest of the project area in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah and northwestern
Colorado, the Uinta Fremont have been identified and may contain sub-regional variants such as the
Douglas Creek/Dinosaur group(s), and the Tavaputs Plateau group(s). To the west of the project area
in Utah, the San Rafael Fremont have been identified. Evidence of the Fremont tradition has been
noted in the western Colorado Plateau and "approximately 300 sites recorded in western Moffat and
Rio Blanco counties have been attributed to the Fremont tradition" (Reed and Metcalf 1999:113).
Site types include rock art, open and sheltered artifact scatters, and architectural sites (mainly
granaries) (Gardner et al. 2005a, 2005b). The region is adjacent to major concentrations of Fremont
12
culture in lower elevation areas to the west, particularly in nearby Douglas Creek (Creasman 1981),
and more distant areas such as Dinosaur National Monument and the Uinta Basin along the Green
River in Utah (Jennings 1974). However, some controversy exists concerning Fremont occupations
in the area. Basin houses attributed to the Fremont tradition have been noted, but are not as common
as houses from the same time period further to the north in Wyoming. Settlement and subsistence
data may suggest more short-term patterns with low quantities of sites with ceramics and the absence
of aggregated settlements. It has been suggested that Fremont practices in the area merely represent
a continuation of the in situ Archaic practices with limited horticulture as a relatively insignificant
addition to the lifeway (Reed and Metcalf 1999). However, recent work at the Eagle Point rock
shelter (5RB4662) and Kuck rock shelter (Gardner et al. 2004, 2007, 2008a, 2008b) may support
Grady's (1980) proposed Fremont occupation in the Piceance Basin. In addition, Gardner
(2009:130) states that the Douglas Creek area contains a high accumulation of agriculture sites and
numerous permanent signs of agriculture that support a degree of Fremont commitment to the
landscape.
The Aspen Tradition (2350-700 B.P.) is specific to the Northern Colorado River Basin where
horticulture was not possible due to the short growing season. Consequently, a generalized hunting
and gathering subsistence pattern was employed which focused on deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and
bighorn sheep. Bison were taken when available. Associated pottery is usually ascribed to the
Anasazi or Fremont traditions, but generic gray -wares were also manufactured. The bow and arrow
was introduced during the early part of the period, using a wide variety of small, corner- and side -
notched projectile points. Also characteristic of the tradition are slab -lined and rock -filled roasting
pits, ground stone, the procurement of small game such as rabbits and rodents, and the gathering of
seeds, roots/tubes, and other edible plants.
This tradition was proposed because many of the sites in the area attributed to the Fremont
tradition lack artifacts diagnostic to that tradition (Reed and Metcalf 1999). No evidence of
permanent Fremont farming settlements has been noted in the region and the Aspen tradition is based
on what is lacking in the archaeological record rather than by what is present. Like some of the
original concepts regarding this area (Jennings 1976), the Aspen tradition represents local, non -
Fremont populations that display Archaic -style hunter -gatherer adaptations and may have traded for
corn and other Fremont -style artifacts. Others, such as Grady (1980) and Gardner (2009) posit that
the area was used seasonally by Fremont peoples who farmed at lower elevation and used the upper
elevations for hunting and gathering. Gardner (2009:134) goes on to state that the "Fremont used
their agriculture fields in combination with other permanent tethers to indicate a level of propriety
over specific space", and that " agricultural practices allowed the Fremont to continue a mobile
lifeway".
Formative era sites where there is no evidence for the practice of horticulture are numerous
in the project area. However, problems arise in how to differentiate the hunting and gathering
activities of the horticultural groups from those same types of activities being practiced by non -
horticultural groups still following a more traditional hunter -gatherer lifestyle. Since both groups
are known to use the same projectile points styles (Rosegate), may use generic gray ware ceramics
or fire pits with rock filled basins, and are probably utilizing overlapping extended ranges for hunting
and gathering, differentiation in terms of surface identification based upon survey data is difficult.
In southern Wyoming, the Uinta phase (Thompson and Pastor 1995) is commonly applied
to components that largely coincide with the Formative era and exhibit many of the same
characteristics of Aspen tradition sites. It may be useful to maintain the Uinta phase so that
Formative -era components in the region can be contrasted to Aspen tradition sites (Reed 2010a).
13
The Formative era encompasses a wide range of behaviors, adaptations, and archaeological
evidence. Further research will help to better define the utility of the archaeological units and refine
the chronology in the area. As the known site pool increases, refinements of the models of
technology, subsistence, and settlement patterns will result.
Protohistoric Era
The Protohistoric period begins around 650 B.P. (A.D. 1300) with the collapse of the
agricultural Fremont, and ends in A.D. 1881 with the expulsion of the Ute Indians to reservations
(Reed and Metcalf 1999:146). It encompasses the period prior to European contact, through early
settlement of the Southwest by the Spanish, to Euroamerican settlement and early statehood. The
early, pedestrian, Protohistoric inhabitants were mobile hunters and gathers who continued an
Archaic life -way. Acquisition of the horse after A.D. 1650 increased group mobility, cultural contact
with other groups, and warfare. Late Protohistoric sites often contain small quantities of
Euroamerican artifacts obtained in trade. Historic records indicate that the Ute and the Shoshone
were the primary occupants of eastern Utah and northwestern Colorado during this time (Reed 1994).
The Ute and Shoshone peoples share the Numic language as well as many elements of
material culture. Historic accounts of Ute and Shoshone distributions indicate a boundary
somewhere north of the Yampa River (Callaway et al. 1986; Gradyl984). Archaeological data
provides limited support for Shoshone occupation of the project area.
Protohistoric sites generally resemble Archaic sites and generally reflect similar subsistence,
technology, and settlement adaptations. Diagnostic artifacts include Desert Side -notched and
Cottonwood Triangular projectile points, and often Uncompahgre Brown Ware ceramics. Wickiups
are sometimes associated with Protohistoric sites, however, they are perishable by nature and are
likely under -represented in the archaeological record. Teepees were likely used more often after the
introduction of the horse and stone circles are the primary evidence in the archaeological records.
Reed and Metcalf (1999) present a two-phase construct based on Ute occupations with the
Canalla phase extending from A.D. 1100 and when Uncompahgre Brown Ware appears in the
region, and the Antero phase which represents a shift to a fully equestrian lifestyle and the
appearance of Euroamerican trade goods. Alternate models for the Ute occupation of the area are
based on historical models of phases of Native American history, beginning with the late pre -contact
period and ending with a phase which describes the modern period (Baker et al. 2007; Leacock
1971). Reed (2010b) has slightly amended the construct of the Protohistoric era in northwest
Colorado Plateau. The period between 650 and 550 B.P. is characterized by sites attributable to both
the Fremont tradition and Protohistoric -era groups and may require an additional archaeological unit
(Metcalf and Reed 2010:20). Radiocarbon data suggests that a transition from Fremont/Aspen
tradition to Numic sites occurred around this time period and interaction and relations between the
two groups may be visible in the archaeological record.
The Protohistoric era in southern Wyoming is represented by three archaeological units
(Thompson and Pastor 1995). The Firehole phase (650-250 B.P.), the Protohistoric period (250-150
B.P.), and portions of the Historic period (150 B.P. to the removal of Native Americans to
reservations) overlap chronologically with the Protohistoric era in Colorado. The Wyoming model
makes little to no cultural assumptions unlike the Reed and Metcalf (1999) Canalla and Antero
phases which are intended to delineate changes in Ute culture.
Dendrochronological dating of wickiup poles and radiocarbon dating of hearth fuel woods
have generally provided the basis for chronological interpretations over the past few decades.
However, biases such as the "old wood problem" may have ramifications for both the
14
dendrochronological and traditional radiocarbon dates for this period and other dating methods
(AMS, thermoluminescence dating of ceramics, trade goods, etc.) may provide for more accurate
data.
Another chronological issue noted for Protohistoric -era components is the notable drop in
radiocarbon dates between approximately 300 and 275 B.P. (Reed and Metcalf 1999; Reed 2010b).
The paucity of dates may be attributable to sampling bias, however, Protohistoric sites are no less
visible than Formative sites, so the drop likely represents a decrease in population. It has been
speculated that it may represent a period of depopulation of the region because of the introduction
of European diseases (Reed and Metcalf 1999; Reed and Smith Gebauer 2004).
Protohistoric sites are sparsely and unevenly distributed in the area and overwhelmingly
represented by field camps. This suggests greater mobility during the Protohistoric era than during
the preceding periods. In addition, the subsistence model indicates that Protohistoric -era subsistence
practices were much more like those of Archaic groups than they were like regional Formative -era
groups. A focus on a narrower range of plant and animal foods, as well as more highly ranked animal
foods is suggested (Reed 2010b).
The Protohistoric era is characterized by less variability in projectile point types than any
other archaeological unit with Desert Side -notched points and Cottonwood Triangular points
dominating the assemblage. Ceramics and groundstone are rare and identified thermal features
suggest a less focused approach to specialized cooking and shorter site occupation than in previous
eras. The presence of Euroamerican trade goods, along with obsidian, marine and freshwater shell,
and gilsonite in Protohistoric contexts suggest relatively elaborate exchange systems and increased
mobility.
The pool of Protohistoric -era components is relatively small and data gaps are plentiful. As
with most models, the Protohistoric era should be continually reevaluated as additional excavation
data from sites in the region are acquired.
Historic Period
Early Exploration
The historic period began in southern Colorado with the early Spanish explorations of the
late seventeenth century, and later, with trade between the Spanish and the native Ute Indians
(Husband 1984; Mehls 1984). It overlaps with the Antero Phase (A.D. 1650-1881) of the
Protohistoric -Historic Era defined by Reed and Metcalf (1999), and reflects regular contact with the
Spanish from the south, increasing contact with Americans from the north, introduction of the horse,
gun, and other trade goods, the expansion of the Rocky Mountain fur trade, and the consequent
disruption and destruction of traditional lifeways. Archaeological historic ethnic affiliations in
relation to modern Indian groups can be assigned with moderate certainty, primarily Ute, but
possibly Shoshone in the northern portion of the study region.
The Dominguez-Escalante Expedition of 1776 is often labeled as the first exploration of the
Great Basin. It was intended to find a passable route between Santa Fe and Monterey, California.
With the knowledge acquired by the previous Rivera expeditions the party was able to easily make
their way into southwestern Colorado following the route of what would later become the Spanish
Trail. They followed the Dolores River northward where it crossed the Uncompahgre Plateau into
the Uncompahgre Valley and continued northward across the Colorado River to Rangely, then
westward into Utah. Once in Utah, they cut their journey short and returned to New Mexico through
the canyons of southeastern Utah and the Hopi mesas of northern Arizona. Part of the route used
15
by the expedition became known as the Old Spanish Trail and was used later by American trappers
and traders.
Fur Trade
Early trappers occupied the region after 1800 and, after the region opened due to Mexican
independence, the fur trade flourished from the 1820s to the 1840s. Antoine Robidoux established
various trading posts in the area and Browns Park, located in northwestern Colorado, became a focus
of the fur trade with the establishment of Fort Davy Crockett in 1836 (Husband 1984).
Federal Exploration
Federal exploration of the area did not begin in earnest until the 1850s. A large focus of the
exploration was to locate transportation routes, especially a path for a transcontinental railroad.
Several explorers led parties of expedition and survey through Colorado and Utah, and after the Civil
War, several expeditions surveyed and mapped the area. John C. Fremont led expeditions that
crossed northeast Utah and northwest Colorado. The Gunnison and Macomb expeditions
subsequently crossed the region. These expeditions provided ethnographic, natural, and surveying
information that eventually opened up the region to settlers.
Mormon Settlement
In 1855 the Mormon church established a mission in the Elk Mountains (now the La Sal
Mountains) at the edge of modern-day Moab. The mission was summarily abandoned in the same
year due to numerous attacks by both the Paiutes and Utes. The Mormons later returned to the Elk
Mountain mission and founded the settlement of Moab in 1876. In 1861 Brigham Young sent a
small party to explore the Uintah Basin for possible settlement. They reported that the area was
barren and had no value so Young decided not to send settlers there (Fuller 2008). After the area
was irrigated in the 1890s, Mormons and other farmers settled into the area.
Reservation Era
On May 5, 1864, Congress passed a law confirming President Lincoln's 1861 executive order
and set up the Uintah reservation (Burton 1996). The Ute people were to give up their land and
move within one year to the Uintah Reservation without compensation for loss of land and
independence. The Uinta-ats (later called Tavaputs), PahVant, Tumpanawach, and some Cumumba
and Sheberetch of Utah were gathered together at the Uintah agency during the late 1860s and early
1870s to form the Uintah Band (Burton 1996). The White River Utes were also forced to move to
the Uintah Reservation in 1880. And finally, the Uncompahgre Utes were forced to relocate to the
Ouray Reservation, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Uintah Reservation. Fort Thornburgh
was built along the Green River in 1881 to maintain peace between settlers and to ensure that the
Uncompahgre and White River Utes remained on the reservations (Burton 1996).
Mining
The late 1860s saw the development of the Hahns Peak and other mineral mining districts
in Colorado (Athearn 1982). In 1888, Gilsonite was discovered in various parts of Uintah County
and on the eastern portion of the Uncompahgre and Uintah reservations. Miners quickly persuaded
the federal government to withdraw 7000 acres from the Uintah Reservation so that they could
legally mine Gilsonite (Fuller 2008). Gilsonite added to the freight business between Price and
Myton but the wagons could not keep up with the demand and in 1904 the Uintah Railway built a
16
narrow gauge line from Dragon, Utah to Mack, Colorado. Known for its sharp curves and steep
grade, the railroad was shut down in 1939 because it became much cheaper to transport the Gilsonite
by truck. The Price-Myton route continued to be used as a mail and stage line, however, this lasted
only two years until a route between Vernal and Colton was established (Burton 1996). Coal was
discovered in northwestern Colorado in 1890 near the town of Coalmont and limited mining
activities occurred into the 1920s (Husband 1984) in places such as Carbonera (5GF1562).
Farming and Ranching
Beginning in the 1870s, the open range livestock industry moved into the region, but was
eclipsed during the 1890s by smaller ranchers, and by the 1920s, the better lands had been
homesteaded and most of the present communities had been established. The first cattle arrived in
the late 1860s in northwestern Colorado and sheep were first brought to Uintah County in 1879 by
Robert Bodily (Burton 1996) and constant conflict between sheepmen and cattlemen occurred during
this time on the plateau (Husband 1984). Farming began in the area as soon the Utes were removed.
Fruit dominated the Grand Valley and other crops like potatoes were grown and sold to mining
camps (Husband 1984:79). In northwestern Colorado and eastern Utah, it was too high, arid, and
cold for farming and the area became known for cattle and hay. Irrigation projects were essential
for growth of these industries and various projects ranging from large Federal projects like the Grand
Valley Project to small and isolated ranching and farming irrigation ditches were built from the
1880s through the mid 1900s.
Transportation
Local and regional roads were developed to service the mining and ranching communities.
Toll roads were built around Grand Junction in the 1880s while smaller communities in the
northwest were interconnected with stage and freight routes. Automobile transportation resulted in
the construction of numerous road through the region. The Midland Trail, also called the Roosevelt
Midland Trail, was a national auto trail spanning the United States from Washington, D.C. west to
Los Angeles, California and San Francisco, California and was organized in 1912 by residents of
Grand Junction, Colorado. From Denver, the original routing split several ways to cross the Rockies
via Berthoud Pass, Tennessee Pass, Cochetopa Pass, and Monarch Pass. All routings converged in
Grand Junction, Colorado and continued into Utah through Green River, Utah and Salt Lake City.
Highway 6 and 50 was built in 1934, and roughly corresponds to the present-day route of
Interstate 70. The forerunner of Highway 6 and 50 was the Pike's Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway.
It also roughly conformed to the route used by Highway 6 and 50 but utilized the abandoned Denver
and Rio Grand Railroad (D & RG) narrow gauge in Utah as it neared the Colorado state line.
The western slope was opened further in 1882 when the D & RG reached Grand Junction
and, in 1932, when D & RG completed the route through northwestern Colorado from Denver to Salt
Lake City. In 1883, track laying for the transcontinental railroad was completed near Green River,
Utah. Because the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway constructed their major shops in Grand
Junction, the population of the town grew tremendously. This line, the Alkali Division, ran between
the town of Grand Junction and Green River, Utah. In 1889, the gauge was switched to the standard
gauge and the line moved south of the Colorado River.
The Uintah Railroad was operational from 1904 to 1939. The railway was founded in1902
as a subsidiary of Gilson Asphaltum Co. It linked the newly founded townsite of Mack with the
mines in Dragon, Utah. The Uintah Railroad was well known for having some of the steepest and
sharpest grades of any in the U.S. Over Baxter Pass, an 8437 foot mountain divide, the engines
17
climbed more than 2000 feet in six miles, featured 65 degree curves and a7.5% grade requiring a
unique articulated engine to manage the line. Between Mack and Baxter Pass, 37 bridges were
crossed. Atchee (5GF642.2) was located at the base of Baxter Pass; it was the location for the
mechanic and repair shops. Sites which would be expected on the lines include sidings, depots,
construction camps, grades, and charcoal lenses.
Oil and Gas
Since about 1900, oil and gas development has increasingly influenced the landscape of
eastern Utah and western Colorado. Early exploration was widespread in the area with both oil and
gas creating numerous mini -booms throughout the years. Oil shale speculation was at a high around
1915 and the government created the Naval Oil Shale Reserves in the Piceance Basin. The
Historical Context for Colorado (Clark and Corbett 2007) provides a broad context and theme of oil
and gas sites in Colorado. It briefly outlines periods of significance of oil and gas industry sites in
Colorado ranging from 1860 to 1900, 1900 through the1930's, to sites post-dating World War II.
Because of the variability of historical archaeological sites and the multitude of approaches
that may be used in their research, identification of data gaps and what is most important at historical
archaeological sites is a moving target. For the most current view regarding theoretical and research
orientations, see the Colorado historical archaeology context (Church et al. 2007).
In the project area, the historic sites of Carbonera (48GF1562), Dragon(48UN1802)and the
Stanfield homestead (48GF 1561) have been previously excavated. Further research into these sites
and site types including trails and roads, early settlements, farming and ranching, irrigation, mining,
railroads, and oil and gas may fill data gaps and provide important information about the history of
the area.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the Class III archaeological inventory was to locate significant
cultural resources in the project area to aid in the preservation of these cultural resources or to
facilitate the formation of appropriate mitigative strategies. A research design intended to guide all
field efforts and analyses for this project was submitted to the BLM (Pastor et al. 2012). The
objectives were accomplished by first conducting the file searches at the various state and federal
agencies through which the project passes, and second, by conducting an intensive pedestrian
inventory of the proposed pipeline ROW, and its associated temporary use access roads and TUAs.
With the exception of a few of the proposed access roads that were previously inventoried in 1998
during the MAPCO Pipeline, the entire project was inspected during the Class III inventory.
Recommendations regarding the significance of the cultural resources located during the project are
made using the criteria for determining eligibility for nomination for inclusion on the NRHP. The
historic preservation laws mandating this cultural resource study specifically identify eligibility to
the National Register of Historic Places as the key factor in determining preservation needs. The
criteria for assessing site significance, as published in the U. S. Government Code of Federal
Regulations (36 CFR 60) reads as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship, feeling, and association and
18
(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 out past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Identification and evaluation of cultural resources in the project area permits formulation of
management recommendations. Management options for sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP
may include site avoidance or archaeological data recovery. Although an isolated find or feature may
be determined to be eligible, they are typically considered to be insignificant and do not meet the
requirements for inclusion on the NRHP and are not recommended for further treatment.
FIELD AND LAB METHODS
The Class III archaeological inventory was conducted by WAS along the entire pipeline
route. The archaeological field methods employed during the field inventory were designed to
efficiently locate all visible cultural resources within the project area and to collect the types of data
required to assess site significant. Prior to the initiation of the survey, the pipeline corridor as
divided into segments that extended between exiting roads providing access into the pipeline
corridor, or other easy to identify landmarks. Within Colorado, the length of the segments varied
up to 3 miles in length and reflected both the difficulty of the terrain and the distance that the crew
might inventory in a day. Maps showing the location of previously documented cultural sites and
the associated site records where compiled for each segment. Field notes were taken recording the
location of both previously documented and newly recorded cultural resources, as well as notes on
the local environment. Isolated artifacts were documented during the course of the pedestrian
survey, with U.T.M. points saved as way points on a hand held GPS and GIS shape files recorded
on a handheld Trimble. Locational information for both the previously documented sites and newly
recorded sites were saved, with the crews returning later to fully document the site. After completion
of the pedestrian survey, a visual analysis was conducted along the proposed pipeline ROW, with
the analysis conducted at all NRHP eligible sites located within the nearby vicinity of the project
area. The visual analysis was conducted primarily along eligible linear properties located within the
project area, including contributing segments of the Uintah and D & RG Railroads, historic towns,
ranches, roads, and other historic properties determined to be significant. Prehistoric sites that visual
analysis was conducted at significant or potentially significant traditional cultural properties
including prehistoric rock art sites and rock shelters.
Pipeline construction will take place within a 100 ft wide zone, divided into a 75 ft wide
working area and a 25 ft wide spoil pile area. Standard WAS methodology was used to conduct the
inventory. A 200 ft wide (61 meters) ROW was inventoried along the proposed pipeline in
northwestern Colorado. The ROW consisted of 150 ft (46 meters) inventoried on the working side
of the centerline, and 50 ft (15 meters) inventoried on the non -working side. This insured the
inventory of the actual construction zone, with a buffer on either side of the construction zone.
19
In addition to the pipeline ROW, 26 TUAs and 16 temporary use access roads were
inventoried in northwestern Colorado. The TUAs varied widely in their size and dimensions,
depending on the specific requirements of the individual TUA. Although nearly all of the proposed
TUAs are located partially within the pipeline ROW, portions of all but four TUAs extended outside
of the pipeline ROW and required additional inventory to provide the required 50 ft (15 meter) wide
buffer zone. The shape files for each of the TUAs was downloaded into the hand held Trimble and
used to located the boundaries of the TUAs. All of the 16 proposed temporary access roads extend
partially outside of the 200 ft wide pipeline ROW. A 100 ft wide ROW was inventoried along the
portions of the 16 new access roads located outside of the pipeline ROW, 50 ft (15 meters) to either
side of the proposed access road.
Survey crews consisted of two to five archaeologists walking parallel transects across the
project area, spaced at 10 to 15 meter intervals. The archaeologists inspected the ground surface and
erosional features within the project area for artifacts and cultural features. Where present,
subsurface deposition exposed in stream cut banks, road cuts, pipeline disturbances, animal burrows,
or animal trails were examined. Ant hills were examined for the presence of micro-artifacts
including pressure flakes or small beads. Bedrock exposures were also closely examined for
prehistoric rock art, historic inscriptions, rock shelters, and burials.
Sites were defined as the locus of previous (50 year age minimum) human activity at which
the preponderance of evidence suggests either one-time diagnostically interpretable use or repeated
use over time, or multiple classes of activities. An isolate as defined by the BLM refers to one or
more culturally modified object(s) not found in the context of a site. Locations of artifacts greater
than 50 years in age, but not meeting the criteria for site definition, were recorded as isolated finds.
Previously recorded sites believed to be within, or in close proximity to the project area were
searched for, and information about them updated on the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey
(CCRS) Forms if they were found to be within the survey area, with updated site sketches,
inventories, and/or feature descriptions completed. Previously recorded information about the site
was compared to the site's current condition and the site significance re-evaluated. In several
instances, previously recorded sites could not be relocated and may have been destroyed by previous
pipeline construction or other local developments or had been misplotted. Updates to the CCRS
Forms were also completed for sites located outside of the survey area on which visual analysis was
conducted. However, since these sites lie outside the survey corridor, site sketches and artifact
inventories were not completed.
When an artifact or cultural feature was encountered, the field crews intensively inspected
the surrounding area to determine whether a site or an isolated find was represented. Newly recorded
sites and isolated finds were assigned temporary field numbers, which included the WAS project
number with a sequential site or isolate number. Efforts were made to determine the actual site
boundaries, even if they extended some distance beyond the project centerline. WAS site field forms
containing all of the pertinent information were completed in the field. At all of the site locations,
a field sketch map was produced showing the site attributes, including tools, features, and structures,
in relation to the proposed project and existing disturbance areas. A permanent site datum consisting
of a 3/4" white PVC tube with a metal/foil tag marked with the temporary site number was placed
at all of the new sites. Attempts were made to relocate the datums at previously recorded sites. If
the datum could be relocated, a new datum was placed on the site. If the site size permitted, the
datums were placed outside of the construction zone. A metal/foil tag marked with the temporary
site number was affixed to the datum. UTM points recorded for the site datums and/or the center
point of the isolated artifacts. GIS shape files were created showing the boundaries of the sites and
20
isolated artifacts. Site overview photographs were taken to aid in relocating the site, with
photographs taken of all features and tools.
Attempts were made to located (or relocate on previously documented sites) all surface
features and formal tools. Non-diagnostic artifacts were analyzed and photographed in the field and
were not collected. Diagnostic artifacts, such as ceramics and complete projectile points were
collected. An inventory of all of the lithic debris found on the sites was recorded, including the
quantity, stage of reduction, material type, and evidence of utilization.
As per the BLM stipulations, site evaluations were limited primarily to surface observations
and the use ofpin flag probes to determine soil depth where eolian deposits were present. Evaluative
testing was conducted at one site (5ME423), where three 1 x 1 meter test units were excavated to
recover a surface feature and to assess soil deposition. The testing was conducted in consultation
with Aline LaForge of the Colorado BLM, Grand Junction Field Office. All fill from the test units
were screen with 1/4" wire mesh screen. Two gallons of fill were collected from the site, with one
gallon submitted for radiocarbon dating and the second gallon subjected to flotation analysis.
The laboratory phase consisted of preparing site and isolate forms. Some of both the
previously recorded and newly documented historic sites, including the homesteads, irrigation
ditches, and historic inscriptions, required additional historical information to be gathered to put
them in their proper context. Research was conducted online using the GLO records available on
the BLM web site, the U.S. Census data, and water appropriations records from the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and Colorado Division of Water Resources. Satellite photos from Google Earth
were utilized to help in tracking down the locations of historic linear properties.
RESULTS
A total of 23 previously recorded sites and 9 newly recorded sites was recorded in Garfield
County as a result of this project (Table 3).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) directs that federal agencies protect
cultural resources that possess significant values. Significance is a quality of cultural resource
properties that qualifies them for inclusion in the NRHP. The statements of significance included
in this report are field assessments that support management recommendations to the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO). The final determination of site significance is made by the controlling
agency in consultation with the SHPO.
The Code of Federal Regulations was used as a guide for site evaluations. Titles 36 CFR 50,
36 CFR 800, and 36 CFR 64 are concerned with the concepts of significance and (possible) historic
value of cultural resources. Titles 36 CFR 65 and 36 CFR 66 provide standards for the conduct of
significant and scientific data recovery activities. Finally, Title 36 CFR 60.6 establishes the measure
of significance that is critical to the determination of a site's NRHP eligibility, which is used to
assess a site's research potential:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) that are associated with events that
21
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or b) that are associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d)
that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history.
The eligibility determination and consultation process is guided by Section 106 of the NHPA
(36 CFR 60, 63, and 800). Final determinations of National Register eligibility and effect are made
by the controlling agencies in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
The files search and intensive inventory indicated 33 cultural resources occur within the
project area. A determination of "no adverse effect" for the project is recommended pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), however, final determinations
of National Register eligibility and effect are made by the controlling agencies in consultation with
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Although no significant portions of any prehistoric sites will be impacted by construction of
the pipeline, a blading monitor and OTI are recommended for the entire pipeline due to the number
of known sites along the pipeline route and in the general vicinity. In addition to the pipeline -wide
blading monitor and OTI, several site-specific mitigation measures are recommended (see Table 3).
Numerous historic sites were found during the project and a pattern of expansion in the
region during the early nineteenth century was noted. Although the Colorado History: A Context
for Historical Archaeology (Church et al.2007) Provides an excellent synthesis of the general themes
in the project area, not all specific areas and historical occurrences are presented. A sub -regional
Historic Context is recommended as part of mitigation for effects of the WEP II pipeline.
REFERENCES CITED
Athearn, Frederic J.
1982 An Isolated Empire: A History ofNorthwestern Colorado. Colorado Bureau of Land
Management, Cultural Resources Series No. 2, 3' edition.
Babcock, Thomas F., and James V. Sciscenti
1981 Archaeological Monitor of the MAPCO Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline: Bureau of Land Management, Craig District, Colorado. Prepared for
Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco. Submitted to the Bureau of Land
Management, Meeker, Colorado.
Baker, Steven G., Richard F. Carrillo, and Carl D. Spath
2007 Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans. In Colorado History: A Context for
Historical Archaeology, edited by Minette C. Church, Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J.
Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, E.
Steve Cassells, pp. 29-106. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists,
Denver.
22
Berry, Michael S. (editor)
2011 Class I Cultural Resource Overview for the Grand Junction Field Office of the
Bureau of Land Management Volume 1. Grand River Institute, Grand Junction.
Manuscript on file at the Grand Junction Field Office, Bureau of Land Management,
Grand Junction.
Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff
1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity
47(3):485-503.
Binford, Louis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider
1976 A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston
Burton, Doris Karren
1996 A History of Uintah County: Scratching the Surface. Salt Lake City: Utah State
Historical Society.
Callaway, Donald, Joel Janetski, and Omer C. Stewart
1986 Ute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp. 336-367. Handbook of
North American Indians, Volume 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Caldwell, M. M.
1985 Cold desert. Pages 198-212 in B. F. Chabot and H. A. Mooney, editors.
Physiological ecology of North American plant communities. Chapman and Hall,
New York, New York, USA.
Cayan, D.R., K. T. Redmond, and L. G. Riddle
1999 ENSO and hydrologic extremes in the western United States. Journal of
Climate12:2881-2893.
Chronic,H., and F. Williams
2002 Roadside Geology of Colorado. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula Mt.
Church, Minette C. , Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl
D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells
2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of
Professional Archaeologists, Denver.
23
Clark, Bonnie J., and Kathleen Corbett
2007 Industry. In Colorado History : A Context for Historical Archaeology, edited by
Minette C. Church, Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon
C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells, pp. 291-396.
Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.
Cole, Sally J.
1987 An Analysis of Prehistoric and Historic Rock Art of West -Central Colorado.
Cultural Resource Series No. 21. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
Collins, Susan, and Calvin H. Jennings
1980 Preliminary Report -Revised, Cultural Resource Inventory Report ofMAPCO 's Rocky
Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, Northwestern Colorado. Laboratory of
Public Archaeology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Submitted to the
Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado.
Connor, Carl E, Nicole Darnell, Brian O'Neil, Richard Ott, Curtis Martin, Dakota Kramer, James
C. Miller, and Barbara Davenport.
2011 Class I Cultural Resource Overview for the Grand Junction Field Office of the
Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction,
Colorado.
Cook, E. R., R. Seager, M. A. Cane, and D. W. Stahle
2007 North American drought:reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth -Science
Reviews 81:93-134.
Creasman, Steven D.
1981 Archaeological Investigation in the Canyon Pitado Historic District, Rio Blanco
County, Colorado. Masters Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, Volume 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 35-99. Academic Press,
Orlando.
Fetterman, Jerry
1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Portions of the Proposed MAPCO Pipeline,
Southwestern Colorado. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Dove Creek, Colorado.
Prepared for Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco. Report on file with the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
24
Fetterman, Jerry, and Linda Honeycutt
1980a Addendum I. MAPCO Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Dove Creek Colorado. Prepared for Woodward -Clyde
Consultants, San Francisco. Report on file with the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Denver.
1980b Addendum II. MAPCO Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Dove Creek Colorado. Prepared for Woodward -Clyde
Consultants, San Francisco. Report on file with the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Denver.
1980c Addendum III. MAPCO Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Dove Creek, Colorado. Prepared for Woodward -Clyde
Consultants, San Francisco. Report on file with the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Denver.
1982 Testing and Excavation Report. MAPCO 's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline, Southwest Colorado (2 Volumes). Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Dove Creek Colorado. Prepared for Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco.
Report on file with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1983 The Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Texas Eastern Pipeline Project,
Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants,
Inc., Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Submitted to Northwest Pipeline Corporation.
Report on file with the Utah BLM, Moab Field Office.
Francis, Julie E.
2000 Root Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin: Archaeological Investigations at
48SU1002. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by D. G. Madsen and M. D.
Metcalf, pp. 166-175. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 122, Salt Lake
City.
Frison, George C.
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, first edition. Academic Press, New York.
1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, second edition. Academic Press, New York.
Fuller, Craig
2008 Uintah County Brief History, http://www.unitahbasintah.org/localhistory.htm,
accessed June 1, 2011.
Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, and Glade Hadden
2004 Interim Excavation Report Kuck Rock Shelter. Manuscript on File at Colorado
BLM, White River Field Office, Meeker, and Western Wyoming Community
College, Rock Springs.
25
Gardner, A. Dudley, Gabrielle Elliot, and Melissa Pola
2005a "Granaries in the Eastern Green River Drainage Basin". Paper Presented at the 7th
Biennial Rocky Mountain Anthropological Conference, Park City, Utah.
2005b "Granaries in the Douglas Creek Drainage Basin". Paper Presented at the Colorado
Council of Professional Archaeologists (CCPA) Conference, Grand Junction,
Colorado.
Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, Jessica Brinkerhoff
2007 Report of Excavations at Eagle Point, Manuscript on file at Colorado BLM, White
River Field Office, Meeker, and Western Wyoming Community College, Rock
Springs.
Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, William Gardner, and Laura Pasacreta
2008a Eagle Point (4RB4662): May 2008 Report, Manuscript on file at Colorado BLM,
White River Field Office, Meeker, and Western Wyoming Community College, Rock
Springs.
2008b Eagle Point (4RB4662): December 2008 Report, Manuscript on file at Colorado
BLM, White River Field Office, Meeker, and Western Wyoming Community
College, Rock Springs.
Gardner, William
2009 Use of Agricultural Space by the Formative Fremont of Northwestern Colorado.
Unpublished Masters Thesis. Yale University, Stamford, Connecticut.
Gazunis-Schwennesen, KT Gazunis
1980 Archaeological Survey of Temporary Use Permit Areas for MAPCO Inc. Pipeline
Right -of -Way for the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Craig, Colorado.
Gilman, Patricia A.
1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest,
American Antiquity 52:538-564.
Grady, James
1980 Environmental Factors in Archaeological Site Locations, Piceance Basin, Colorado.
Bureau of Land Management, Colorado, Cultural Resources Series No. 9.
1984 Northwest Colorado Prehistoric Context. State Historical Society of Colorado,
Denver.
26
Grand River Institute
1980 Archaeological Monitoring of the MAPCO Pipeline Construction Between
Carbonera and Baxter Pass. Grand River Institute, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction.
Harrington, J. A. Jr., R. S. Cerveny, and R. C. Balling, Jr.
1992 Impact of the southern oscillation on the North American southwest monsoon.
Physical Geography 13:318-330.
Hauck, F. Richard
1997 Archaeological Excavations (1993-1996) in the Douglas Creek -Texas Creek
Mountain Locality of Rio Blanco County, County. Archaeological -Environmental
Research Corporation, Bountiful, Utah. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management,
Meeker, Colorado.
Hereford, R., and R. H. Webb.
1992 Historic variation of warm -season rainfall, southern Colorado Plateau, southwestern
U.S.A. Climatic Change 22:239-256.
Hereford, R., R. H. Webb, and S. Graham.
2002 Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau Region, 1900-2000. U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet 119-02 (http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs119-02/).
Holmer, Richard N.
1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. In Essays in Honor of Jesse
D. Jennings, pp. 89-115. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, Vol. 110, Salt
Lake City.
Honeycutt, Linda, and Jerry Fetterman
1991 Report of Class III Inventory Conducted for Northwest Pipeline Corporation's
Mainline Expansion Project, Eastern Utah (Rich, Uintah, Grand, and San Juan
Counties) and Western Colorado (Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, San Miguel, Dolores,
and Montezuma Counties). Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow
Jacket, Colorado. Submitted to Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Salt Lake City.
Report on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado.
Honeycutt, Linda, Jerry Fetterman, and S. Eininger
1990 Report of Class I Inventory Conducted for Northwest Pipeline Corporation's
Mainline Expansion Project, Eastern Utah and Western Colorado. Woods Canyon
Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Submitted to Northwest
Pipeline Corporation, Salt Lake City.
27
Horn, Jonathon C., Susan Chandler, Kimberly Redman, Diane Langdon, Diane Perry, and Alan D.
Reed
1998a Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Colorado Part 1 of 3: Mesa, Garfield, and Rio Blanco
Counties, Northwestern Colorado. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose.
Submitted to Mid-America Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with
the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Denver.
Horn, Jonathon C., Jerry Fetterman, and Richard A. Greubel
2003 Summary and Evaluation of Research. In The Mid-America Pipeline
Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data
Recovery Project Northwestern New Mexico, Western Colorado and Eastern Utah.
Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants, Inc. Manuscript on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Utah State
Office, Salt Lake City.
Horn, Jonathon C., Jerry Fetterman, and Linda Honeycutt
2003 The Mid-America Pipeline Company, Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop
Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project, Northwestern New Mexico, Western
Colorado, and Eastern Utah. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose
Colorado, and Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket, Colorado.
Submitted to Williams Energy Services. Report on file with the Utah BLM, Salt
Lake City.
Horn, Jonathon C., Kimberly Redman, Jerry Fetterman, Linda Honeycutt, Diana L. Langdon, Diane
Perry, and Alan D. Reed
1998b Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Colorado Part 2 of 3: Delores and San Miguel
Counties, Colorado. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose. Submitted to
Mid-America Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Colorado
Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1998c Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Colorado Part 3 of 3: La Plata and Montezuma
Counties, Colorado. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose. Submitted to
Mid-America Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Colorado
Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
Horn, Jonathon, Kimberly Redman, Diana Langdon, Diane Perry, and Alan D. Reed
1998d Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Utah Part 1 of 3: Grand County, Utah. Alpine
Archaeological Consultants, Montrose. Submitted to Mid-America Pipeline
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Colorado Historical Society,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
28
1998e Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Utah Part 2 of 3: Uintah and Daggett Counties, Utah.
Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose. Submitted to Mid-America Pipeline
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Colorado Historical Society,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1998f Cultural Resource Inventory of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky
Mountain Expansion Project, Utah Part 3 of 3: San Juan County, Utah. Alpine
Archaeological Consultants, Montrose. Submitted to Mid-America Pipeline
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Colorado Historical Society,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
Husband, Michael B.
1984 Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context. Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado.
James, Grady
1980 Environmental Factors in Archaeological Site Locations. Bureau of Land
Management Cultural Resource Series 9. Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood,
Colorado.
Jennings, Calvin H.
1976 An Assessment of the Potential Cultural Resources of the Proposed Utility Corridors
for the C -b Oil Shale Lease Tract. Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins.
Jett, Stephen C.
1991 Split -Twig Figurines, Early Maize, and the Child Burial in East-Central Utah. Utah
Archaeology 1991 4(1):23-31.
Kornfeld, Marcel
2008 Paleoamerican Subsistence and Folsom in the Rockies. Mammoth Trumpet, Volume
23, Number 4, pp. 1-4. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station,
Texas.
Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson
2010 Prehistoric Hunter -Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Third edition. Left
Coast Press, California.
Kornfeld, Marcel, and Larry C. Todd (editors)
1985 McKean/Middle Plains Archaic: Current Research. Occasional Papers on Wyoming
Archaeology, No. 4. Wyoming Recreation Commission, Cheyenne.
Leacock, Eleanor Burke
1971 Introduction. In North American Indians in Historical Perspective, edited by E. B.
Leacock and N. O. Lurie. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, Illinois.
29
Madsen, David B.
2007 The Paleoarchaic to Archaic Transition in the Great Basin in Paleoindian or
Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene -Holocene Transition.
Edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt. The University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
McEnany, Tim
1981a Monitoring Report. Spread 4. MAPCO Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline. Archaeological Center, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City. Prepared for Woodward -Clyde Consultants. Report on file at the
Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City.
1981b Monitoring Report. Spread 5 and 5a. MAPCO Rocky Mountain Liquid
Hydrocarbons Pipeline. Archaeological Center, Department of Anthropology,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Report of Investigations N. 80-22. Prepared for
Woodward -Clyde Consultants. Report on file at the Utah Division of State History,
Salt Lake City.
McFaul, Michael
2000 Geoarchaeological Reconnaissance, Mid-America Pipeline's Rocky Mountain
Expansion Project, MP 424.92 to 627.25, Northwestern New Mexico, Southwestern
Colorado, and Southeastern Utah. LaRamie Soils Service, Laramie, Wyoming.
Report prepared for Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, for Mid-America
Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Bureau of Land
Management, Salt Lake City.
2002 Eastern Colorado Plateaus Geoarchaeological Characteristics. LaRamie Soils
Service, Laramie, Wyoming. Report prepared for Alpine Archaeological
Consultants, Montrose, for Mid-America Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Report on file with the Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City.
McMahon, Todd C.
1997 Official Recording of George and Edna Woodbury's 1931 Paradox Valley Survey
and Considerations for Reinterpretation. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual
Meeting of the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Golden, Colorado.
Copies available at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
McNees, Lance M.
2005 Project Overview and Discussion. In The Archaeology Along the Lost Creek
Pipeline, Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. Volume I: Project Overview
and Discussion, edited by C. S. Smith, pp. 1-1 to 7-1. Prepared by TRC Mariah
Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, for Lost Creek Gathering Company.
30
Meaney, C. A., and D. Van Vuren
1993 Recent Distributions of Bison in Colorado West of the Great Plains. Proceedings of
the Denver Museum of Natural History Series 3, No. 4.
Mehls, Steven F.
1984 Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver.
Metcalf, Michael D.
2010 Revised Model of the Archaic-Paleoindian Transition and the Archaic Era
Occupation of the Pipeline Corridor. In Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled
for the Piceance Basin Expansion, Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin
Lateral Projects Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado and Sweetwater County,
Wyoming, Volume 2 edited by Michael D. Metcalf and Alan D. Reed. Metcalf
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., for
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC and Wyoming Interstate and El Paso Company.
Manuscript on file with Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation.
Metcalf, Michael D., and Alan D. Reed eds.
2010 Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion,
Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects Moffat and Rio Blanco
Counties, Colorado and Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Volume 2 edited by Michael
D. Metcalf and Alan D. Reed. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Alpine
Archaeological Consultants, Inc., for Rockies Express Pipeline LLC and Wyoming
Interstate and El Paso Company. Manuscript on file with Office of Archaeological
and Historic Preservation.
Perlman, Susan
1998 Traditional Cultural Properties Survey of the Mid-America Pipeline Company's
Proposed Rocky Mountain Expansion Project, Northwestern New Mexico, Western
Colorado, and Eastern Utah. SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.
Report prepared for Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, for Mid-America
Pipeline Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Report on file with the Bureau of Land
Management, Salt Lake City.
Pitblado, Bonnie L.
1994 Paleoindian Presence in Southwest Colorado. Southwestern Lore 60(4)1:20.
Reed, Alan D.
1994 The Numic Occupation of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah during the Prehistoric
and Protohistoric Periods. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the
Expansion of the Numa, edited by D.B. Madsen and D. Rhode. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
1997 The Gateway Tradition: A Formative Stage Culture Unit for East-Central Utah and
West -Central Colorado. Southwestern Lore 63(2):19-26.
31
2010a Revised Model of the Formative -Era Occupation of the Pipeline Corridor. In
Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion,
Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects Moffat and Rio Blanco
Counties, Colorado and Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Volume 2 edited by Michael
D. Metcalf and Alan D. Reed. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Alpine
Archaeological Consultants, Inc., for Rockies Express Pipeline LLC and Wyoming
Interstate and El Paso Company. Manuscript on file with Office of Archaeological
and Historic Preservation.
2010b Revised Model of the Protohistoric -Era Occupation of the Pipeline Corridor. In.
Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion,
Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects Moffat and Rio Blanco
Counties, Colorado and Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Volume 2 edited by Michael
D. Metcalf and Alan D. Reed. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. and Alpine
Archaeological Consultants, Inc., for Rockies Express Pipeline LLC and Wyoming
Interstate and El Paso Company. Manuscript on file with Office of Archaeological
and Historic Preservation.
Reed, Alan D., and Rachel Smith Gebauer
2004 A Research Design and Context for Prehistoric Cultural Resources in the
Uncompahgre Plateau Archaeological Project's Study Area, Western Colorado.
Prepared by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, Colorado. Prepared
for Uncompahgre/Com. Inc., Montrose, Colorado. Submitted to Bureau of Land
Management, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado.
Reed, Alan D., and Michael D. Metcalf
1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado Rover Basin. Colorado
Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.
Rhode, David, Lisbeth A. Louderback, David B. Madsen, and Michael D. Metcalf
2010 Packrats, Pollen, and Pine along the Wyoming Interstate Company, LLC Piceance
Expansion and Kanda Lateral Pipeline and the Kinder -Morgan Rockies Express
(RES) Pipelines. In Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance
Basin Expansion, Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects Moffat
and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Volume 3.
Manuscript on file with Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation.
Schriever, Bernard A.
2010 Appendix A: An Essay on the McKean Complex. In Synthesis of Archaeological
Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion, Rockies Express Pipeline, and
Uinta Basin Lateral Projects Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and
Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Volume 2. Manuscript on file with Office of
Archaeological and Historic Preservation.
32
Schroedl, Alan. R.
1991 Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau.
Utah Archaeology 1991 4(1):1-25.
Smith, Craig S., and William Martin, and Kristine A. Johansen
2000 Sego Lilies and Prehistoric Foragers: Return Rates, Pit Ovens, and Carbohydrates.
Unpublished Manuscript. TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.
Smith, Craig. S., and Lance M. McNees
1999 Facilities and Hunter -Gatherer Long -Term Land Use Patterns: An Example from
Southwest Wyoming. American Antiquity 64(1):116-136.
Stiger, Mark, A.
1998 Hunter -Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country. Manuscript submitted
in partial fulfillment of Colorado State Historical Fund Grant 96-02-153. Manuscript
on file, Colorado Historical Society, Denver.
Stiger, Mark
2001 Hunter -Gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Stiger, Mark A., and Mark Larson
1992 A Radiocarbon Date from the Cottonwood Cave Corn Cache and Problems
Interpreting the Origins of Farming in Western Colorado. Southwestern Lore
58(2):26-36.
Thompson, Kevin W., and Jana V. Pastor
1995 People of the Sage: 10,000 Years of Occupation in Southwest Wyoming. Cultural
Resource Management Report No. 67. Archaeological Services of Western Wyoming
College, Rock Springs.
Wandsnider, LuAnn
1997 The Roasted and the Boiled. In Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1-48.
Article No. AA970303.
Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff
1980 A History of American Archaeology. Second Edition. H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco.
33
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
1980a Cultural Resource Inventory, MAPCO 's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline, Southwestern Colorado. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco.
Submitted to the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1980b Cultural Resource Inventory, MAPCO 's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline, Northwestern Colorado. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco.
Submitted to the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1980c Cultural Resource Inventory, MAPCO 's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pipeline, Utah. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, San Francisco. Submitted to the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.
1983 Final Report, Cultural Resource Management Program, MAPCO 's Rocky Mountain
Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, Southwestern Colorado. Woodward -Clyde
Consultants, San Francisco. Submitted to the Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Denver.
34
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATION PROHIBITED (43CFR7.18)
Western
Archaeological -
Services
e
= PROPOSED PIPELINE
■ = COMPRESSOR STATIONS
Q = TOWNS
= INTERSTATE 70 DRAGON STATION 1
— LOCAL HIGHWAY MACON
= COUNTY LINES
— COLORADO RIVER
UINTA COUNTY
THOMPSON
CRESEN1. SPRINGS
IIINCmSN
GRAND COUNTY
RIO BLANCO COUNTY
ATS
GARFIELD COUNTY
MACK
TH6MPSdN
STATION
MOAN
rn
LAMA
FRII[TA
GBANID JUNCTION
MESA, COUNTY
A/Enterpflse WEP II Plpellne
29e
200 MOS
Figure 1. Map of the general project area.
36
Figure 2. Map of Enterprise WEP 11 project in Garfield County
0 Milepost
Centerline
Access Road
Survey Boundary
Entereprise WEP II Pipeline
TUA
Ownership
BLM
PRIVATE
STATE
e4 .
;,East Evacuation
`.Creek.(1664). -
500
0
500 Meters
N
A
0.5
0
0.5 Miles
n!Thi..=MWAIMBIE
i
d o! • • .
11
NINIiIMEMIBB
MS
1211911.111111
II MIWINEMIIM=MM
intwimminzmuse
r'iaCv -Y
rI1 )CES•
. Es
ni+ua '
Nomisoen�
nom
mow:
IIIMIIIIIMEM LIWIllirliaMiNEBBIlli
-I
OMB=!
..7L MEOW
EMS= MIf,,;:/.m1111:
Figure 3. Map of Enterprise WEP 11 project in Garfield County
„
NB=
=MEM=
ENSIMM
EllIMEMMIE
=AM!MIM
1=11EN=IIMININ
=5MEMEW.EI
111HIIRNEMMII
NEMMEM
IONENE=IIMMO
Win=
=MIME
IMEMI
•=i151=
MNIMMIENIME
IMIIIEMMENEM
simmmm.•
minum
IMMIMIMICIEME
NIMEMEM•wm
. • ` : : ,
• ..•?( _..--,. •
• ' • • • `• •
'• ? fr7 ';•;•.;.
• e -
1 1
7,
0.5
- 5 )
• • ,:
• ••• • •••••
••• „
• . • • • • •_-.7 • .
• •
••
„ ,-• ,
• ••• . • 1
• I ...I •
••-‘.
•
'- •
•••••
I ' ; • .
• , . , ; • 7, : „ „ •
rds.
EMIENIMINKV
IIMONE=MME
aimEaida
onimmimmi
EIMIUMINEEEKI
MIMHEMMOOKI
ME=EMMMIE
l'IM=OMIMEnasomfmniscMUNN=E=EMMM
WERMS=EMIUMHIENNEU==MMIMEMNii
• ,
ndrve.
1..da
„ .
Entereprise WEP II Pipeline
Milepost
Centerline
Access Road
Survey Boundary
TUA
500
0
Ownership
BLM
PRIVATE
STATE
'iM 1111ME
PaiL Rai
1=
11!WELIMPI
211401141
,,
\ ‘' • 'I: ,.YEast Evacuati /Cr0# (194) . •
._,:-.„9"2.• C' .4. • '.'.; . . .-', :
. , - ,
\ •::.--_:., - '---- -,.,. • • BZter Pai 104) ;,---,....
..,
..-) ..
au
:,;I7.-V--'‘:i••":•k• :. ....:.q .`Ii \••-; i .. ' 1)
• ••••:.;. ... !..:., ,".I '! -,, ' ., ! ,, ..„.., :, '.! .:.[:. ,. ..:1'.• )- )' , .:, „-,.i" . ...• 7.. i I... •'„:....`„.,i.,',.'.'.'..,;r.'.l,, :.:.•.,..••. S--'-,..,:
... .. .•: • -----,-._-.:'-i",i,--..-.'...,,..'•%.:.'-..'•:.,••'
'•
•. ' .t. • ' -
--..,...-.,.-:-.i.,,•:.,..-1-:2-"i,."'•':..._-''.';:v',."-..
•.:,%:
ii/ I(' 1 -
- :, _
mmm. ,......,
-•-•.':..
•••'' -''• •'''•.'‘:`'
714 N .
11111inN
•
, .
) `7
••\
500 Meters
0
N
0.5 Miles
i11•9112F,MEMINIA
11=01E111
INIMEMMINI=M11
WHEW
ltkimmw
111111r
•
Figure 4. Map of Enterprise WEP II project in Garfield County
SO Iii=UMIIIIIM
in Ernfilie
lrwIIMMINIMMISIMMEA
iiiinilETWARKGYMNIMM
AIIIMBIWEIraNMOI
HOMMINEINNMIBEE
7111
NIIIINNIMMIMMME
MIIIIIIMII
s®_
r
mi
MI
gl J1M1111111
1
i
D
2'
1f1 i.UUSEIRMlibMi
IU
MMENI11/11ZEM
Man VORANEMIL
SI knikInklifal
ramsuRtinum
iF0 � .^i'.meml<amrs�w
1•1lNMI& \`1
4,i"
16511111=113:1111 -
a
Pte'
AWE
iJ
MINIMilliliMdlilliff
IgMIIMMEMMWMIMMINEIMIIMMIN
MEMINEMEISMIRIMEMOL ISL.Tili
te.
IMMIMMEEMMEMOIIIMP
3(\
%1pi�'['�®�
ni
11Ea'LM.0 u
EINNIENVIIMMIMIMM
M
,Olin
PINIIIMIIIIMMIIIM
-461 7
J: l
4
�
�
N = El M i• 1 • II1= PE • 1= Fi
EIMMEM11110=13121MigIM71MM ..
ds
flTia 1Y3s
Kra,
FM iffilHINMiNN
FIVAWil
iNVIIKIMM
•
T5S R7'b3W
1
L
f.
T6.S . R1b4W..
o Milepost
Centerline
Access Road
Survey Boundary
0.5
Entereprise WEP II Pipeline
TUA
500
0
Ownership
r//i
BLM
PRIVATE
STATE
�'rwsicea, .
500 Meters
0
N
- _ 111111111111111FiAFAA
0.5 Miles
SE UM
WA, 61114
r`I_VOINNINO
Figure 5. Map of Enterprise WEP II project in Garfield County
11
0.5
Entereprise WEP II Pipeline
Milepost
Centerline
Access Road
Survey Boundary
TUA
500
0
Ownership
BLM
PRIVATE
STATE
500 Meters
0
r•
vices C.gze.
N
0.5 Miles
xtAr:Pa § (1,
r,:
4W:- _% R1 93w
93
?1`fiti/
iAMA 1,k7iEFFORI
fialrymmimmisaair
rii
itirliri/
•
•
/—
t`�,pwY
,.1
"f
,.f
it
'I
S�a
I;s
111114
r;
ti
1
Figure 6. Map of Enterprise WEP II project in Garfield County
n erel,- sin ieuMB
1 MS..., ...........•
ILW-03RMIEVIMA=4m� N®i9131t
`'•li,
,+ r�=' c'a` Y •
--. '•�'Q9ytioR$r
\ti',',f '. `.t \ti. -'-
r li Lf rirs:-_„
'I. I
� i�� .
�' /�:.�r -' jnI$i
•, �j�` ,,;, :
,'r�' :
_ -�, ..L..•• \ =�lr ;}
S'.`. ;'. V i rife' L / G t�PO
- -
r 'y _l Jrr=r- -
_ _-..`_ -y'- .d Ji.`,�
_
L ._- +lis ■�IIPr'
'III•
�,
- / _! v
_.�.._: ;:�•:'.,„Ccs �Ci �. !,•' I
�---
y,'',\,]:. Iit.,; SS'i��i'
��.4' 1' ,1't. •-'.•-f---�', 14,1 ..f �G: .r�-
}r : ,':\ `�L'� i.. l . - '•%a'!.'- I1llf7�li0��R
•
l-'.,\��,ti• wi.',-' Tr
L�. ` ff!+ ;
S' 6 gRiTHIFIBMSOMILIMBOTNAGILWE
�-;.--• ti,
It
- .YN r, i•'r�f ,= - \s°: :.1�,ti:=-.J'. \\`.
1;
f •NIEWEEMIIIIEVIME
'�•,.`�:.. _ 1' r�r
'r `'� '�•1 -,
's -':.�,
��� `, `�; -
_ SII •'r• i�, _ �Ir= :���-':.�. ''�
�1f 11111 �SiWN
�-
•,. :i.• r j 'yl l 1;'1
`�'1-'' !'fri`-=.j' ��';; ��• 1
' �+ tY 1.1144
- - Y, :I - .cr:-- \4�.:�.-,,
i �- �C•;.
I, ' f '”
EL EIEWEEMICIENEEK10.1
�RI�u..aawEII
_ _ r'
1,'i ,,-.,.-;� ; =- - 1 Irl
:i iyf�, __ ��7 l
-
. `•;,• _ t,;:: �'
�I,�a unms�
I■.A=SIE!=1
_ r: :: ,. 1
C`r _ ;
!;i
_�_r �• til - .r-= "
.�\ Vl�'�1
1E1E4!/1MINEVAIIIRIEM.dIrdlE
i1�1�►16�Ilri I�IVII'i
%,/ „-•'} r•=`
- 5c. •�r.�'`�
_.martommaimorivammew
__fl _=\_J ±c
•%. .1
' \.
= '.1 i,
SAL SIJ Iv '= =__L_'� , !' ". T1s
�■[�®� r' 1 s'' r "r _-:_-y '••:,
ice .\`.
,,
. ,> - '� ,. •, �_-� s- �' - _-�] i •.j i ]I
[ • ;1'
1fl _ 'if MI I/i:-...AWAINIENIP,C: _' -J _'ice_ '�i, ...r�7` \ i
_ •1Z ..aa..++
. }i31
. - =�=-:_ r%:' :rr .11 rr: ',
- J
y1.
•
ifr•
1: •
��
1r';
I�..f
•I
1cl
•SE
1,�`�.'•�
\'2
4
N1
•Jr
1 I � -, `-, _ rr f _
fra+/A,n ^has 1'.1 ;I'.: r,r �i ..r'
__.2....,>.!.\:„'n.:-.,, lI
Y
fL�i, _ _ syr : 1• ,.....
�.. 6 _ 1 s j l J,
1
ff1N
-, r ' ice-@ '- U5: --s / _ ,�r c `, .+r� , I ! :f 7 .. { '; =_=_ Ii 1 1 l\
` l '
t r('":
�J (?111 a. f i
/,• ,\ 1 ._ ,1�•- , -- ; r• lr-.
- �.'.rl 'fi l, 1 i' ,err �, •�i.�
,' L_r 4{ . A' J`i ,•
'
r '•.
tik, •
y
�W
, Elul•
/III�R1isI
II �If�Lll�lLlfr'
VII I'i�fiS 911
fn��al
QF.'
�,,,- C f .1;y — rl
, ,1.:,•':';';'----
I '-} ,.p p [`C 'SFrir.
�/ •r...� _ �`� -�p.�^, _ �Ri:�rr. �l sJ "`
' -,•c-� `_ _�;--, �:-l-`._r. \ii-. __ f
' - -` _-• `• `\
- '!
1, - - r . `_ : .- e
_.
j 1 '� =A-. - ``
'..`-'.,..y
_
�s♦'if"s.arll
1
^` % �J -'1 r "'
NITIIMMIEWIDI
-7uu1n
Entereprise WEP I I Pipeline
Q!1 y
i
:•.
0
1 =I
ENEEPEETEMIIII
i (j„
68iremum�fa'
0 Milepost Ownership
Rmammi
`�, L ♦ � V
- ."1 L 1II
�
ALIEFEMEEMESEt
Y/�esi x . .
- - BLM
} a` \•r 1 R.
ppW
NEEIVINEI
Centerline
i'•,_ l i:: n \
1114�{Y�7
PRIVATE
1, Vii,` _ -.k;-/ 1. �,
EFEEs
Access Road
,:. �l-, -'---- +
1``.ri
STATE
V/i N
+r
,i .,•��
Survey Boundary
,,, '�- ` - :� -.
-.ins
. iii
` \
-7
TUA
.
_•;�
raormumasam
. •7111=Ifillii
A
:: i c - - _=-��'-- -.� •. _ 1 r\
`_
1`
■IR, IMNNRffe
El:1� ,i
-
500 0 500 Meters
milmaimih
,r�.'-.q-
r
Vii'
;mirrn
--:`: _ ;--•.'
0.5 0 0.5 Miles
.:r' .
C.W,3riw..r IIMERNMEIWARIE
rr 1s1r
ff■\l
1 1
.7"-.-:
EIMINIIIMENESANIEESEMEENI
'
Rf. fJ
�
(�
-.:
,-•-'
'
-,1.,,i�i , �
' 'r.l/
l_,\-
miimE
\�'Mi�FiNG�
.- •' •`
�'1•=-
�].�T T:.- r
-~:r
;�411=EULIEEINEM
1r?iii,c9-yLr Z�
,
i``4;yi i`U1y
--�1:1r.
'\�1!,,
,na,a
1'' , '
o
=
_"r•.. �_..-.-
_ 't -r
rlJ-
._1f
/
'
ea 19651 L1.9
N 7
I _
-.•
;:
.. }7if•
.
�
•, 1 7=-- r
.
\�\4`-\`•..,
�_`.
�',,y�
ERLMAISEIMMAId
�a�
�iJ
-
• l `
'_•
-' \�-(:
_ \'ti �_ \1.4x.
.�titi`'l
?r.�..r��
`} ti1�'fi\1
r`r•]_ z.:-'_
7'
'r'i,
%
__
, ` 7;'�S
wl�\:h�C 1sL•
n
- .'�
�,•�' [Ji11'.1t'j
{I`r�,:
4,-;11,
ry:C
';.,
S.•
Ci. 7- :�-.— l+�4
.S1:11E1\,-'-iiiiiiVIESEN
�. _:
'-- jcc( i
1`l
[�1
- t,\'1:Y:
i1lMNIZELIIIIANMEIMEIMEILMEREMEEENEEEM
--_ J
,
\ id i
i
(/J:)\B
kA}}��
\A....�.
-.-J _`
�
m
"IC\\�[IR�11E
`f--
. __ ..� f 1
_'MEEINETIMENEIEEILLEEMEREINNEEIMINESEEEE
arc
'.J
1�t.
• ` OC>D :.mow.'-_ _'•
f■lltl[FIIR 1199 1_ =
S ....i
-3E11111141EEENIE111111EMEENVIIIIIEEEEM/IMEMENSAIEE
..•
-------,----,--
�•:i
:.'=•- -`-;;
��_..:
I -,r.�...,ti...,- 4' -
'�'`
.. ^�. .�.•, v:,*
fY:Ynl PSi�ifA5i.=313.E\�,TSl1FiT-
�. _ ,,.\,.l ,\`
III ir• '.
'_
Eoln ►�I. EL�q
'I11- j y. •
I 1 U
y,1
•._. • I�.=.,'`.-
''1�IEIMIMELI
�uimani ■s mom ®®�e_at■
ERIMEMBIBilininnilEinigediiiMMilliENtreriEnii
ys,'L'.j,' yss, V
, `'':'r
•`f::
rESEEII IRf
\ 1 ..
',: r:. •;,. `;1C�
r -
'r �.
]v1'1 • �::-J rl:,{ ',I' \
` '--
1olE 011E11
Y l �ld�_{10
9 (,,-�fi .��r��i�. : ;';
1'1'x',• •.ti r'Y ,:�:iJ�11
y,• l '�i •,.4 11
::'� \�'..''.' _.` v',, �..�, 1�y
-- ,.� \
:'l: r).i l�\�i� /.'' '(fl I1 ll._:.
�
VI
�~:�`\•i
' �VELEZELEMEINEIENEEIREENEEWEAREENERIESEEV�
INEEINEE
1 __ - `_
1� �lVESILEFEMEI .l'\•, ll��•`.. •�'. ,�1 11 1 ,'-f
i/ •\
i�•;IEFESENANEZE
fri _ i r'�_ :1+ i '� X17
\'
r:'.1i'r'�` {}j:
imma Rn
' f■NAI�ID�
.,' -
� \.. L t i .`�.' -'••
;1 '� . .•,r ... •. : j� 1'.
� �r '. •.,�,
- -7
j•i ,' �r4,�• - C. \.\1 ti'\`�
•'- - } �• ;
: - - - •1"y1
1U■,\{liL�
EQi
.I
;.J �.?..,; '•L,-�f '1 1 i
_•\ '\, .�•
,+. I 11 !'�', n\`;;4 , !
i f r:
k 1 1
..
•.1;.\i s '•: _ ' ,IIINVEMEELSE
i ,` 1 f •
r` `', {
�n■a®rR■� �
`
! ,•h- JJ1' 1 := _ '' Illi f:�
rr
I' Iy1 1�1�L` ,\
',f�Cff�J1R110■f+
l■��►AA
;;; 1 rsw.m
�II
p ,: S : 7 C:' L` r ---- C�' i=._� :: -.. 1 1
cif '� i\,,,'.,. '1`1
I i■
MINIM
..,,'� J J' �:. �,, _ Lola
C,t r:j� � f,,r r,r: -.---__ �f rl -
'} 1 1 11 :;. ..2 �
MIME IMEINN/11111%11 �
4i14101016 w
r - _?' - 1 �RNa
•r: •:1-.= a.
l_
1 1 ::f !-'
.�.;;.
`; •J f1
SIEEELIMEMIERREAM NE
MEMy4,
EIEMENENEMEIRMilidErldli APE
Jl'�e-.
I ' 2:' �.., fi r;Jr 7 . ; }� ` ) • 1r' -. - _ ,'! ' _ 111�� \��••.
,>/='-_ �.. {.
''•.
� 1♦ f
illEIHNEEKENIMIEN�i�'
=VIM
NER
�'
- - -;-`W.:' - ��it An
! Ed
- - ,•'i.�\. '• !,' - �`•`:.' ;
■YdN ��f:
':�� .. .._ _ -:.err.
1I i�wAtils
•''`\•
\:r, y� ����"
•1 44 ./. inFAMM
- ii, f ri iY:\'`l 1 C'k'•,
DE
-- _ ._ ... -.ti_• SE
- 1'.Y _- ;r,i•- 9-:� .\
{"' _ '.. ,I Vii, f i . % .��i �` ."``i 1 - 1i';'•
OMP A - Ell
If =J 1' = I ,i..:' 1 1 i I i l �_; .1 I S'.`.'.. Ct,, � s \ 1 "'j1; tii: '- ' 'i ;I (
�•R ` f`[,, 1,'�'�i '�1. •y 'l'ti:,i ,��i
PM N11
�
_
11 •�EEIN
1=1:111ERIMERM Al
�
I
_`-:�.,/. , ,, 1�. _
�r:�. -`_�',;• 1..11 %''1fY�1�l
It \•• 1� _ tel`--,n:'\A't,.I1 .1' 1. �.. I 1 y .•11ti �•e \ `'<'.,'r,` r1
1 } , ',•a y,' •1" • ' 7J'
F!»�
i i�
�, ^^�� �'''—' _�� \ •`• --'->_-•',•
1' ---- .1.--..: i '3 ,r'^Jr 3l` y ,' \`>\a\.
`,,',''••'ti 'r °
•ate S■�17lEi
\]I!•w
fSRNI
Pt
.h .1; HN _ l ,
. 1'' r 14 4', y]� 9 1
11' ` -- --- t.. ), �' if`''i "lt-' '�r .11 ,''1 Sr;.l l �l','i l' �I Y; 11 1 +:` . , 'l1' \ ✓
ET,' •
"'m"1"1-• FE
xtir
i6RRIIl1�iAli
Figure 7. Map of Enterprise WEP II project in Garfield County
rtwx manam mamma Islio:mins—a
NONFAIIII7A10721iNIGNIMINEWBWOOMI
VO-ZWAVUAIIVILIVVVVIERVEV•
,4e-toREEMEMENKWEEIVNIEVIREffliElaliliP
/a171iIIME_,IMEZEVOMMIVidiElliVEEMIC
II21110iIMMIMOMMINNINilli•una
...IMMANNWHIMMENMZIMINON1
MFAIEINENTRUMIWIIINVffA
FMIPMEIPONINZEWMAIRVIPERI Nffl
112.1MENEMVEMEMS0YAIZOMUM
w i • 1 Iiii arm m m i e mu NIN u trA x To
malwisawasveADEN
/241VIVINUIVAILVMENEVIMEMI WM
maasalraffinzmainpwAstorm
rwar—.0=effirdfflatrtgarAssmoilm WA
WITIRMWANUMIEMIERIMMII
VelINI=OGIEW2IBMIERFOMEI
Iissmrissoosr.
EVEMVANOMMEEVEM
NLViggraMM
14Reaft4,11M111=11:
RNMAMEMINVEllt
iNAVVEMEEVENVAIME
anatamiezmax
ISIMNIVEIVUIVEENEVE
VERINOINSMML_WWVI
"feElliEll:INIVE=EMII
EMpiiMMEILIM
Mii:WWilifiMMM
NEMMINWSIM111•17
1:101141Vi
ANIMINIMMEMEI
MO=EIMMEI=Mii
El MMIEMII.WMMEM
ME 1=IMIVMIMMMIEWWW&M.
MNIMEMZ=IMMEILM=NEM
WPMMENVYMME
,,M=H1=1:EMMOMI
IM 1 !=
PM DiEVEin
MOIMELMNIM
BE15‘.-M!IIMMWI!
IMMEr7MiLm_IL
11119_1MMEI
i
MMMM•
!A!". _datil=f1:41=
MS =IIIMSMIIMM
UM -1,56=MW 11
ME
Ili
SU 105,11M E
ISO L,!.=
MI ELWZVEUMIM V
BE MINIVIMINEA V
= =IiMEIM V
NI IMMMIV.XEMM 1
IW IMEMMV V )
El a i m1 ri m s n 11 I I
Figure 8. Map of Enterprise WEP II project in Garfield County
7•1•M I
•
mama 1,•!im •
"IIIMEMM1
ini=rai.-"WIMVM
SMVPLI V
'1111E/V=PIM V0
• MEIMPW1 IMMINEIMM=
inrr I
"IMMIMIB liMWiMi==
maw= MM. a
1.111
Eli
IMENEIN
VU
M...11i3IMIM
aVIVPUN
MEIMININIMMIMMIE1=001
Effini
MIN
(-;
‘L.5000 1 ,.. ..., /....)2 11‘,.,± ...',....„ \...)) ,.... .•` 11., I) 19 1.
MMMO==
./' /..:jr--,.
q/ „I ..- — -, •— I -.
'..
z-- - \ ().---: •'-‘.1- 0
Vdd, ,.• : i 1. \ , c f •,-.
...,, ‘. ( •\..:•',1. 1,,-,_„.;'..!..,---,„ _.:„...,.,..,'......,,\,..„,.._,',,,.,,..._,,,-,L.),_••.'":::.(,..:1",..y7,.!,,,,...c.. ,,c--7,,'.?.._:,,..-,w.,[1f,".,-,:e., .s/(,,..,e/f ,,,,,, „ ,._,. _,,,i?.)1
,
\ ,...',J;,_. .,--
I u.',\ - ,", - -7 ' •"P.'"!
(1 "."_,.._ _.,.7.-"'.-z;-.._•--' ..4 ' 1,
--. %...:
• ,.....„ ,
-- ,, ...• , , ....
4: ....;.;•• ).1 -• ;. ... • „.. , ..... ',.., ',
? / .,. . • , ,, Id °','.'
. . \ . -.'...., ..... " - 1 "..,,,i ''.!I l'ij .1 ..., ..P.-; .:,./ L'..' (--• 1::
1, ,...../)
. .1. f .7
) ,I 4 -/., • ; / (-' ) ' .,
((„J .
./.!,.......?
''' 11 .•7 t`-: : , \ '`..-1 ; (--'/( - ,..... , , — , ,..1 1-
. , 4,1 •-- -. )•-• ( i ; . .... \ . I ; r• r••• ../ ? ..-- N. ;,:. ... I \ r . '
% ‘ V t•' Y •••J • • r''0 .1 [• ;••-- I • -.-`..
( ; •,... r! L.-, \ -- ,'—'•1•
. , 9; r 1. ve,... _ --„,
.,.. ) I'. 1;' 19 L••- ' 11---, A ; / ....\ i , `-,...•.
../-;.-; '•-• li , j r'' • Lj;k---
---. ..., , ,
''',-'''':, •j: [ ---,
....., ,••-• -.„ • ...- , • ...- , ,... „,-..• „.• ,..- 1 ''..1
71. I L' • T. .r.-,. .....--, , i
.4, i ' dr d. ...., . __..'' • 15‘......;V:
ir---.......,
7--.-"-d -- •• / J \ .d. , r. d•.. - Li
) - • rI? \ ( . -- ..;"-•
/ d
'':i V \/--'' 1:- [-- I .',” :1-0.\ r ---t ....,,,'
---,'
..,-P
-
''--,-- '-,,)
I 1 ''',, .• A,
• •.. - 4? T1 ,,,,, ''-.1— -, ..7.-Y • I ...---,
.: - • •- --
,_ -...-:. r... ............ ,.../
1
,..
_ cb07 (198ip..:,..c9.73),,.:.'-:,,;-/!y7r ..2.,../frLT,
— 77
• ' ' • 968) /I- _ ..., . c.......
2
• •• •••
.• /1
- -• •-•-••-•-• ••‘Th
,
...,.. -..,.._ :E,
likIli
....Af °
i ..
. ._ , .,, -,- ...,.:- •._/ ••;,.
1. '' ' .i" • . •‘:•• .(.. -
,
• , (
0
0
\
R1 aim._
Table 1. Previous cultural resource inventories in Garfield County.
PROJECT
AUTHOR
YEAR
CONTRACTOR
Northwest Pipeline Corporation: System Expansion Project, CRI
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unlisted
Archaeological Survey of the Western Slope Company's Baxter Compressor Station Loop Line, Garfield County, Colorado
Jennings, C. H.
1976
Colorado State University Laboratory of
Public Archaeology
Archaeological Reconnaissance of 13 Well Sites in the Book Cliffs Area, Garfield County, Colorado and Grand County, Utah
dickens, P. R.
1977
University of Colorado
Natural Gas Well Sites
Nickens, P. R.
1977
University of Colorado
Archaeological Reconnaissance of Three Gas Well Sites, Southwestern Garfield County, Colorado
Nickens, P. R.
1977
University of Colorado
Field Checks for Well Sites and Access Road, Garfield County, Colorado (Fed wells 12-16 & 21-16 Palmer Oil and Gas Co)
Breternitz, D. A.
1977
University of Colorado
Palmer Gas and Oil Co: Archaeological Reconnaissance of Thirteen Proposed Well Sites in the Book Cliffs Area, Garfield County and Grand CountyNickens,
P. R.
1977
University of Colorado
Archaeological Clearance Report for 18 Well Sites and Adjoining ROWs, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, Colorado
Ryan, R. P.
1978
Centuries Research
Veco Drilling: Drilling Rig Stack Location
Unspecified
1979
BLM
ROW of Lateral A-14 with USA 1-13 Well
Kranzush, K.
1979
BLM
'rovident Government 2-33-5-102, Archaeological Survey of Well Pad and Proposed Access; CRI for Proposed Government 16-34-5-102 Well Pad,
3uffer Area and Access; and Survey for Government 2-20-5-102 Well Pad, Buffer Area and Access, Garfield County, Colorado
Metcalf, M..
1979
Powers Elevation Company
Tenneco Oil Company 28-10 & 28-2 Federal, Archaeological Survey of Well Pad and Access, Garfield County, Colorado
Metcalf, M.
1979
Powers Elevation Company
Archaeological Clearance Survey of Seven Well Sites for Powers Elevation Company, Inc., In Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado
Kvamme, K. L.
1979
Centuries Research
Gas Pipeline in Northwest Colorado and East Central Utah
Powers, M.A., and C. M.
Haecker
1979
San Juan County Archaeological Research
Center
An Archaeological Survey of Gas Pipelines in Northwest Colorado and East Central Utah for Northwest Pipeline Corporation
Powers, M.A., and C. M.
Haecker
1979
San Juan County Archaeological Research
Center
An Intensive Inventory of Two Proposed Drill Holes in the Baxter Pass, Colorado Locality
Smith, T. M.
1979
Archaeological Environment Research
Corp
West Central Colorado Coal Leases Final Report
1-1 ibbets, B. N.
1979
Archaeological Associates
West Central Colorado Coal Leases, Garfield , Mesa, Gunnison, and Delta Counties, Colorado (Volumes 1-3)
1-iibbets, B. N., J. Grady, J. A.
Halasi, H. Huse, and F. W. Eddy
1979
Archaeological Associates
Texas Gas Exploration Corp: CRI of Five Proposed Well Sites/Access Roads (Fed # 14-2, 12-3, 21-4, 23-4, 31-16)
Conner, C. E.
1979
Grand River Institute
Three Proposed Gas Wells/Access Roads and a Pipeline (Govt #'s 34-2, 1-19-83, & 1-14-84)
Euchner, J.
1980
BLM
Lost Safari Reservoir Maintenance, Dam Maintenance, and Proposed Baxter Pass Catchment
Apryll, K.
1980
BLM
Mitchell Energy: Federal #2-34-7-104 Well Pad and Access Road
Reed, A. D.
1980
BLM
Determination of Eligibility: The Uintah Railway Mesa, Garfield, Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado
Athearn, F. J., and S.F. Mehls
1980
BLM, State Office
MAPCO Pipeline Right -of -Way
Gazunis Schwennesen, K.
1980
BLM, Craig District
Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Western Slope Gas Co. Fuelco B12, D12, P-29 Well Laterals, Tenneco 4" Gathering Line - 1980, and
Tenneco 10-12 4" Well Lateral, Garfield County, Colorado
Biggs, R. W.
1980
BLM, GJRA
Management Appendices Grand Junction District Class I History
Mehls, S. F.
1980
BLM, GJRA
MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline
Collins, S., and C. H. Jennings
1980
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
A CRI MAPCO Hydrocarbons Pipeline- Northwestern Colorado Preliminary Report -Revised
Collins, S., and C. H. Jennings
1980
Colorado State University Laboratory of
Public Archaeology and Woodward -Clyde
Consultants
CRI MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, NW CO
Unspecified
1980
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
CRI MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, Southwestern, Colorado (Volume 1, Addendum I, II, and III)
Fetterman, J. et al.
1980
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
A Cultural Resource Inspection of Mitchell NRG Corporation's Proposed Fed 2-34-7-104, Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Reed, A. D.
1980
dickens & Associates
Woodward -Clyde Consultants: Archaeological Monitoring of the MAPCO Pipeline Construction between Carbonera and Baxter Pass
Conner, C. E.
1980
Grand River Institute
Archaeological Survey of Provident Resources Incorporated's Three Well Sites and Related Access Roads, Garfield County, Colorado
Alexander, R. K.
1980
Grand River Consultants
CRI of Two Northwest Pipeline Corporation Well Ties in the Rocky Mountain- South Canyon Gathering System, Garfield County, Colorado
Alexander, R. K.
1980
Grand River Consultants
CRI of Northwest Pipeline Corporations Well Tie with Texas Gas Explorations Federal 12-3 Garfield County, Colorado
Alexander, R. K.
1980
Grand River Consultants
Archaeological Survey of Devon Corporation's Fed 129 Road Realignments, Garfield County, Colorado
Alexander, R. K.
1980
Grand River Consultants
CRI of Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Lateral A-35 Pipeline and Well Tie 3-34-5-102, Foundation Creek Gathering System in Garfield County
Alexander, R. K
1980
Grand River Consultants
CRS for CIG Exploration , Inc. Proposed CIG 2-15-8-104 Well Pad and Access Road, Garfield County, Colorado
Waitkus, B, R.
1980
Powers Elevation Company
Cultural Resource Survey for Mitchell NRG Corporation Proposed Fed 3-11-8-104 Well Pad, Buffer Area, and Access, Garfield County, Colorado
Watikus, B. R.
1980
Powers Elevation
Archaeological Survey for CIG Exploration Proposed 2-17-8-104 Well Pad Location and Access, Garfield County, Colorado
Waitkus, B. R.
1980
Powers Elevation
3elco Petroleum: Three Proposed Well Locations in Buttermilk Canyon (3-3, 8-3, and 9-10)
Euchner, J.
1981
BLM
?owerline ROW for Moon Lake Electric for Horizons Communication Relay Station Garfield County, Colorado and Archaeological Survey of 250
T eet for the Proposed Extension of A Powerline for Mack Communications and Moon Lake Electric, Garfield County, Colorado
Layhe, R.
1981
BLM, Craig District
Coseka Reroute Access for 12-32-4-103 Well
Knox, D. J.
1981
BLM, WRFO
Survey of Proposed Coseka 12-32-4-103 Access Reroute
Knox, D. J.
1981
BLM, WRFO
Coseka Retoute Access for 12-32-4-103
Knox, D. J.
1981
BLM, WRFO
,uel Resources Development Company: Four Proposed Well Pads/Access Roads (F-1-6-104-S, F-33-6-103-S, L-23-6-104-S, M-20-6-103-S) in the
3axter Pass Area, Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1981
Grand River Institute
UELCO/Beartooth Oil and Gas: CRI on a Proposed Access Road Realignment to Two Gas Wells in Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1981
Grand River Institute
CRI Report on Proposed Well Location Buttermilk Canyon Unit No, 12-7 Federal, Garfield County for Belco Petroleum Corporation
Conner, C. E.
1981
Grand River Institute
Archaeological Monitor of the MAPCO Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline: BLM CD, Colorado (From Baxter Pass North to the Utah
State Line)
Babcock, T. F. and J. V.
Sciscenti
1981
Grand River Consultants for Woodward-
Clyde Consultants
Monitoring Report - Spread 4: MAPCO Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline
McEnany T.
1981
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Archaeological Survey of Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Reroute of Mitchell NRG's Fed 3-11 Well, Garfield County, Colorado
Babcock, T. F.
1981
Grand River Consultants
Archaeological Survey of Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Well Tie to Mitchell Federal 2-34-7-104, Garfield County, Colorado
Babcock, T. F.
1981
Grand River Consultants
Cultural Management Report, Federal 1-8 Well Pad and Access for Bearthooth Oil and Gas, Garfield County, Colorado
O'Neil, B.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
3eartooth Oil and Gas: CRI of Federal 1-8
O'Neil, B.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
3eartooth Oil and Gas: CRI of Federal 13-3
Tate, M.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
Cultural Resource Survey for the Beartooth Oil and Gas Fed 1-1 Well Pad and Access and Well Pad Fed 24-3, Garfield County, Colorado
Oneil, B.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
A Cultural Resource Survey for Beartooth Oil and Gas Company Fed 13-3, Fed 36-10, and Fed 29-13 Well Pads and Existing Access Requiring
Upgrading and Improvement, Garfield County, Colorado
Williams, G. E.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
3eartooth Oil and Gas: CRI of Federal 29-13
Williams, G.
1981
Powers Elevation Company
3eartooth Oil & Gas: CRI Report on Proposed Gas Well Federal #7-1 and Related Access Road in Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1982
Grand River Institute
3elco Development Corporation: Six Proposed Gas Wells (Atchee Unit Federal #'s 7-13, 9-5, 16-3, 8-21, 15-10, and Buttermilk Canyon Unit Federal
414-7) and Related Access Roads in Garfield County
Wignall, C. M.
1982
Grand River Institute
Archaeological Survey for Northwest Pipeline Corporations's Bar X South Canyon Second Exchange Point, Garfield County, Colorado
Hartley, J. D.
1982
Grand River Consultants
Archaeological Survey of Frontier Exploration, Seismic Shot Holes, Rat Hole Ridge, Garfield County, Colorado
Sciscenti J. V., and D. M.
Griffiths
1982
Grand River Consultants
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, CRI of Texas Eastern Loop Pipeline Project (Appendix D,G,H, I, K)
Unspecified
1983
Unlisted
NW Pipeline Corp: CRI of the Texas Eastern Loop Pipeline Project (Appendix F)
Unspecified
1983
Unlisted
CRI of the Proposed Texas Eastern Pipeline Project, Western Co and Eastern Utah
Fetterman, J. and L. Honeycutt
1983
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
The CRI of the Proposed Texas Eastern Pipeline Project, Western Colorado and Eastern Utah
Fetterman, J.., and L. Honeycutt
1983
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
Texas East Pipeline Project West Colorado and East Utah
Fetterman, J.., and L. Honeycutt
1983
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
CRMP: MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline
Unspecified
1983
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Cultural Resource Survey for DYCO Mesagar: Federal #10-1 and 20-1 Garfield County
abcock, T., and J. D. Hartley
1983
Grand River Consultants
Archaeological Survey for Baxter Pass Road Reconstruction, Garfield County, Colorado for the Garfield County Road Department
artley, J. D.
1983
Grand River Consultants
Geophysical Service, Inc.: Archaeological Survey of Seismic Line 4493 T5S, R103W - Sections 25 and 36 Garfield County
artley, J. D.
1983
Grand River Consultants
Archaeological Survey of the Geophysical Svs Seismic Line 4493, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado
abcock, T. F., and J. D. Hartley
1983
Grand River Consultants
Garfield County Road Department: Archaeological Survey for Baxter Pass Road Reconstruction, Garfield County
artley, J. D.
1983
Grand River Institute
Archaeological Survey for Eight Seis Pros HeliPortable Lines in the Baxter Pass Area, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, Colorado
ullivan, J. P.
1984
Grand River Consultants.
CRI of 2.5 Acres for Road Relocation in Garfield County
ight, B.
1985
BLM
CRI for a Forestry/Wildlife Oak Cutting Project, Garfield County, Colorado
igh, M. K.
1985
BLM, GJFO
CRI Report on Approximately Four Miles of Proposed Pipeline and New Access in the Prarie/Buttermilk Canyons Area, Garfield County, Colorado
:or D & G Roustabouts
onner, C. E.
1985
Grand River Institute, Inc.
CRI Proposed Pipeline Reroute Baxter Pass, Garfield County, Colorado
Hammack L. C.
1985
Complete Archaeological Service
Associates
CRI Report on Proposed Fed Well Location 1 in Garfield County, Colorado
Conner, C. E.
1987
Grand River Institute
7uelco: CRI on Proposed Federal Well Location I in Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1987
Grand River Institute
CRI of The Proposed Fed 27-16 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Lone Mountain Production
Conner, C. E.
1989
Grand River Institute
CRI of the New Frontier Seismic Line and Access Garfield County, Colorado and Uintah County, Utah Addendum
Metcalf, M.
1989
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants.
Northwest Pipeline Corporations Mainline Expansion Project: Class I Inventory Conducted for Eastern Utah and Western Colorado
Unspecified
1990
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
Class I Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Mainline Expansion Project Eastern Utah and Western Colorado (SJ90100)
Fetterman, J., S. Eininger and L.
Honeycutt
1990
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
CRI Report on the Proposed Fed 23-6 & Fed 26-4 Well Locations in Garfield County, Colorado for Lone Mountain Production
Conner, C. E.
1990
Grand River Institute
-one Mountain Production: CRI on the Proposed Fed #23-6 and 26-4 Well Locations in Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1990
Grand River Institute
CRI of Mitchell NRG Corporation's Proposed Well Pad, Bittercreek Unit 1-25-14-25 and Associated Access Roads in Uintah County, Utah and
Garfield County, Colorado, Addendum
Crum, S.
1990
Alpine Archaeological Consultants.
Archaeological Monitoring of Northwest Pipeline Corporation's Evacuation Creek Underground Pipeline
Montgomery, J.
1991
Abajo Archaeology
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, System Expansion Project Class III CRI (2 Volumes)
Honeycutt, L., and J. Fetterman
1991
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
CRI Report on the Proposed Pipeline to Fed 33-8 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Lone Mountain Production
Connner, C. E.
1991
Grand River Institute
?rairie Canyon Ponds 3 & 4, Garfield County, Colorado
Deaver, D.
1992
BLM, GJFO
CRI Report on the Proposed Dam and Drainage Project in Garfield County, Colorado for WestGas
Hutchins, R. L.
1992
Grand River Institute
The Archaeology of the Grand Junction Resource Area Crossroads to the Colorado Plateau and the Southern Rocky Mountains. A Class I Overview
O'Neil, B.
1993
BLM, GJFO
CRI Report on the Proposed Pipeline to the Fed #2-10-84 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for National Fuel Corporation
Conner, C. E.
1993
Grand River Institute
CRI Report on the Proposed Relocated Fed 34-26 Well Location and Related New Access in Garfield County, Colorado for National Fuel
Corporation
Conner, C. E.
1994
Grand River Institute
CRI Report on the Proposed Fed 34-26 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for National Fuel Corp
Conner, C. E.
1994
Grand River Institute
CR Management Report GASCO Inc, Farney Fed 3-1 Well Location and Access Road, Garfield County, Colorado
Tucker, G. C., .
1994
Powers Elevation Company
CN Production Company: CRI for five Proposed Well Locations in the West Salt Creek and Prairie Canyon Areas of Garfield County
Conner, C. E.
1995
Grand River Institute
CRI Report for Five Proposed Well Locations in the West Salt Creek & Prarie Canyon Areas of Garfield County, Colorado For KN Production
Company (S#9575)
Conner, C. E.
1995
Grand River Institute
�I Report for the Proposed Baxter Pass Fed 11-7 Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for KN Production Company
Original and Addendum)
Conner, C. E.
1995
Grand River Institute
CRI Report on the Proposed Trail Canyon 31-7+5-103 Well Location and Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Amoco Production Co
Conner, C. E.
1995
Grand River Institute
CRI of Proposed Repeater Site for Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Garfield County, Colorado
Fetterman, J.
1996
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants.
CRI of Proposed Gas Pipelines in East Branch of the West Salt Creek, Garfield County, Colorado
Montgomery, K. R.
1997
Montgomery Archaeological Consultants
Class III CRI for the Proposed South Canyon Fed 10-11 Well Location on Federal Lands in Garfield County, Colorado for Tom Brown Inc.
Conner, C. E.
1997
Grand River Institute
Class III CRI Report on the Proposed South Canyon Federal 7-13 Well in Garfield County, Colorado (9712)
Conner, C. E., and B. J.
Davenport
1997
Grand River Institute
Class III CRI for the Proposed 2.7 Mile Long 4' Pipeline to the Existing Atchee 15-10 Federal Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado
Conner, C. E.
1997
Grand River Institute
Class III CRI for the Proposed South Canyon Fed 10-11 Well Location and Access on Federal Lands in Garfield County, Colorado for Tom Brown
nc.
Conner, C. E
1997
Grand River Institute
CRI of Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rock Mountain Expansion Project- Colorado Part 1 of 2: Mesa, Garfield & Rio Blanco Counties,
Northwestern Colorado
Horn, J. C„ S.M. Chandler, K.
Redman, D. Langdon, D. Perry,
and A. D Reed
1998
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
Mid-America Pipeline Co: CRI of Access Roads, Reroutes, and TUA Associated with the Construction of the Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop PPL
Unspecified
1998
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
lithnographic Survey of the Proposed Mid-America Pipeline Company's Rocky Mountain Expansion Project Northwestern New Mexico, Western
Colorado and Eastern Utah, Addendum: Second Hopi Letter Report
Perlman, S. E.
1998
SWCA for Alpine Archaeological
Consultants
Class III CRI Report for the Proposed Fed 27-12 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Hallwood Petroleum, Inc.
Conner, C. E
1998
Grand River Institute
CRI of Access Roads, Reroutes, and TUAs Associated with the Construction of the Mid-America Pipeline Company's Rocky Mountain Expansion
i,00p Pipeline, Garfield, La Plata, Montezuma and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado
Davis, J.
1999
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin, Multiple Counties (SHF 1997-P1-015)
Reed, A. D., and M. Metcalf
1999
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants
Extensive Data Recovery Plan for Mid-America Pipeline Company's Proposed Rocky Mountain Expansion Project, Western Colorado, Eastern Utah
& Northwestern New Mexico
Horn, J. C.,, A. D. Reed, J.
Fetterman and L. Honeycutt
1999
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
Migrations in the North: Hopi Reconnaissance for the Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline
Anyon, R.
1999
Heritage Resources Management
Consultants, LLC w/ Hopi Cultural
Preservation Office for SWCA
CRI of Hallwood Petroleum's Seven Well Locations in the Prairie Canyon Area, Garfield County, Colorado
Montgomery, K. R., and S.
Kinear-Ferris
2000
Montgomery Archaeological Consultants
CRI Report Range Permit Renewal for the Year 2000: Evaluation of Grazing Impacts in Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado for the BLM GJFO
Conner, C. E., and B. J.
Davenport
2000
Grand River Institute
^.,evel II Documentation of Fourteen Segments fo the Uintah Railroad Grade (5ME767/5GF642/5RB823) Mesa, Garfield, and Rio Blanco Counties,
Colorado
Horn, J C.
2001
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
The Mid-America Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project Northwestern New
Mexico, Western Colorado, and Eastern Utah Chapters 5, 19-22 (Limited Data Recovery/Monitoring, 5GF620, 5LP2345, 5ME422,
Horn, J. C., J. Fetterman, and L.
Honeycutt
2002
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
The Mid-America Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project Northwestern New
Mexico, Western Colorado and Eastern Utah Volumes 1-7 (Draft)
Horn, J. C., J. Fetterman, and L.
Honeycutt
2002
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
The Mid-America Pipeline Company/Williams Rock Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project Northwestern New
Mexico, Western Colorado and Eastern Utah Chapters 25, 26 (5DL318, 5GF1561)
Horn, J. C., J. Fetterman, and L.
Honeycutt
2002
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants
The Mid-America Pipeline Company Proposed Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project
Fetterman, J. and L. Honeycutt
2003
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
Tracing the Past Archaeology Along the Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline
Cassells. E S.
2003
Alpine Archaeological Consultants
The Mid-America Pipeline Company/Williams Rocky Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project Northwestern New
Mexico, Western Colorado and Eastern Utah Chapter 27 (5GF1562)
Horn, J. C., J. Fetterman, and L.
Honeycutt
2003
Alpine Archaeological Consultants and
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants _
Class III CRI of the Buniger and Spring Canyon Ponds Range Improvement Project in Garfield County, Colorado
Darnell, N. M.
2004
BLM, GJFO
Evergreen Resources Inc. Class III CRI of Two Columbine Springs Fed Well Pads, Access Roads and Pipelines in Garfield County, Colorado
Metcalf, M.
2004
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants
Class III CRI of Canyon Gas Resources San Arroyo to South Canyon Pipeline Garfield County and Grand County, Utah (MOAC No. 04-225):
Addendum: CRI of the San Arroyo to South Canyon Rerouted Pipeline, Garfield County, Colorado
Bond, M. C.., and J. A.
Montgomery
2004
Montgomery Archaeological Consultants.
Class III CRI for Proposed Gathering Pipelines to Fed Wells 1-34, 1-35, 2-34, & 12-3 for National Fuel Corporation in Garfield County, Colorado
Conner, C. E.
2004
Grand River Institute
?aleo investigation of ROW for Canyon Gas Resources Pipeline near Baxter Pass
Unspecified
2005
Robert Young
Class III CRI of the Hazzard 6-1 Well Pad and Access Road, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, Colorado
Baeh, S., H. Guy Hays, and
M.Retter
2005
SWCA
Class III CRI for the West Salt Vegetation Treatment Project in Garfield County, Colorado for the BLM GJFO
Conner, C. E., and B. J.
Davenport
2005
Grand River Institute
Class III CRI for Two Proposed Pipeline Routes for CDX High Inert Project (Snow Grove Mesa 30-5-103 and CDX Govt Buttram #1) in Garfield
County, Colorado
Conner, C. E.
2005
Grand River Institute
CRI of the East Tavaputs Plateau Aspen Rejuvenation Project, A Sample Inventory of 418 Acres Located in Garfield County, Colorado (06-81-01)
Dussinger, M.
2006
BLM, VFO
CRI of the Meeker Lateral Pipeline, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties
Greenberg, M., and C. Kester-
Tallman
2006
Cultural Resource Analysts
Final Report: Colorado Radiocarbon Database Project, Multiple Counties (SHF 2005-M2-003)
Berry, C. F.
2006
Dominguez Archaeological Research
Group.
A CRI of the Uinta Broadcasting Tower Near Baxter Pass, Garfield County, Colorado
Johnson, W. S.
2007
Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
A CRI of the Uinta Broadcasting Tower Line Near Baxter Pass, Garfield County, Colorado
Weymouth, H. M.
2007
Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
Williams Northwest Pipeline Vernal District: CRI of Two Locations, Garfield County
Smith, C.,, B. Hill, D. Byers
2008
ENTRIX, INC.
A CRI of Retamco's Proposed Rathole Gathering Area Pipeline and Access Roads in Garfield County, Colorado
Johnson, W. S.
2009
Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
A CRI for the Proposed Badger Wash 2-D Seismic Lines BW -2008-1 thru 5 and Seismic Line DC -2008-1 and Its Associated Access Roads, Mesa
and Garfield Counties, Colorado (BLM NO. 5508-02)
Pagano, S. C.
2009
Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants
Class III CRI of 67 Anomaly and Recoat Locations, Rangely to Cisco, Williams Northwest PPL, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado
Hill, B. L., C. S. Smith and Z.
2010
Entrix, Inc.
1\Telson
Table 2. Previously documented cultural resources in Garfield County.
SITF
CUT TIIRF
TYPF
FI.IGIRII.ITV
FIELD
OFFIUF
T/R
SF('TI4)\\
LAND
OWNFR
CONTRACTOR
YF,AR
BEARING
DISTANCE
Meters
GARFIELD COUNTY
5GF139
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
BLM
BLM 1979
IN (SE)
10
5GF140
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
BLM
BLM 1979
E
75
5GF162
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
0
BLM
AA 1978
W
265
5GF221
Historic
trash dump
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
10
BLM
BLM 1977
SW
1640
5GF223
Historic
camp
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
15
BLM
BAR 1977
W
1650
5GF271
Multi
component
sheltered lithic/trash
dump
Not Eligible (official)
GJFO
6S/103W
35
BLM
GRI 1995
IN (NW)
45
5GF332
Multi
component
rock art
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
28
BLM
BLM 1977
NW
735
5GF333
Prehistoric
rock art
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
BLM 1977
NW
195
5GF341
Prehistoric
sheltered camp
Needs Data
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
GRI 1977
NW
250
5GF342
Prehistoric
rock art
Needs Data
GJFO
7S/104W
23
BLM
GRI 1977
NW
100
5GF395
Historic
foundation
Not Eligible (official)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
GRI 1998
NW
285
5GF399
Historic
camp
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
HMIWC 1977
NW
445
5GF466
Historic
habitation
Needs Data
GJFO
5S/103W
6, 7
Private
GRI 1995
W
115
5GF518
Prehistoric
rock art
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
23
BLM
CAS 1979
NW
70
5GF605
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
8
Private
LOPA 1980
IN (SW)
20
5GF619
Prehistoric
rock art, open camp
Eligible (official)
GJFO
6S/103W
35
Private
ALP 1998
NW
75
5GF620
Multi
component
open camp/trash
Eligible (official)
GJFO
6S/103W
7,12
Private
CRA 2005
IN
--
5GF621
Historic
trail/road
Needs Data
GJFO
5S/103W
27, 34, 35
Private
SWCA 2006
IN
--
5GF621.1
Historic
trail/road
Needs Data
GJFO
5S/103W
27, 34, 35
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
IN
--
5GF622
Historic
inscriptions
Needs Data
GJFO
5S/103W
34
Private/BLM
SWCA 2006
NE
250
5GF623
Historical
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
BLM
GRI 1980
E
75
5GF625
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
S
50
5GF626
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
SE
95
5GF627
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
IN (NE)
25
5GF628
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/1 -3W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
SW
70
5GF629
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
SW
60
5GF630
Multi
component
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
35
Private
GRI 1980
IN (SW)
10
5GF631
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
35
Private
GRI 1980
IN (SW)
10
5GF632
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
BLM
GRI 1980
NNW
40
5GF633
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
NW
120
5GF634
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
BLM
GRI 1980
IN
--
5GF635
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
BLM
GRI 1980
IN
--
5GF636
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
BLM
GRI 1980
E
85
5GF637
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
Private
GRI 1980
E
95
5GF638
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
34
BLM
GRI 1980
N
140
5GF639
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
34
BLM
GRI 1980
N
400
5GF640
Historic
homestead
Eligible (official)
GJFO
7S/104W
2, 3
Private/BLM
CRA 2006
IN
--
5GF641
Historic
cairn
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
34
BLM
GRI 1980
S
115
5GF642
Historic
railroad
Eligible 1
GJFO
5S/103W
multiple
Private/BLM
WCRM 1991
IN
--
5GF642.1
Historic
railroad
Eligible (non-contributing)
GJFO
7S/104W
14
Private
1980
IN
--
5GF642.2
Historic
town
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6S/103W
multiple
Private
BLM 2011
E
80
5GF642.3
Historic
railroad
Eli ible (contributing)
GJFO
8S/104W
15
BLM
ALP 1998
E
270
5GF642.4
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
8S/104W
3, 10
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
W
75
5GF642.5
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6S/103W
multiple
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
(IN) E
25
5GF642.6
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6s/103w
35
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
IN
--
5GF642.7
Historic
railroad
Eligible (non-contributing)
GJFO
5S/103W
16, 21, 22, 27,
28, 33, 34
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
IN
--
5GF642.8
Historic
railroad
Eligible (non-contributing)
GJFO
5S/103W
21
Private
ALP 1998
IN (E)
25
5GF642.9
Historic
railroad
Eligible (non-contributing)
GJFO
5S/103W
6; 5, 8, 17, 20,
21
Private/BLM
ALP 1998
IN
--
5GF642.10
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6S/103W
multiple
Private
ALP 1998
IN
--
5GF642.11
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6S/103W
6S/104W
multiple
Private/BLM
CRA 2006
IN
--
5GF642.12
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
8S/104W
3
Private/BLM
MONT 2004
E
345
5GF642.13
Historic
railroad
Eligible (contributing)
GJFO
6S/103W
multiple
Private/BLM
CRA 2006
E
100
5GF740
Historic
industrial
Not Eligible (official)
GJFO
5S/103W
21
Private/BLM
WOOD 1980
E
W
150
145
5GF744
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
0
Private
CRA 2005
(IN)W
25
5GF852
Prehistoric
rock art
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
5
Private
GKAC 1981
E
250
5GF1110
Historic
homestead
Needs Data
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
BLM 1982
W
85
5GF1125
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
Unknown
GRI 1980
W
2785
5GF1126
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
Unknown
GRI 1980
W
1425
5GF1127
Prehistoric
open lithic
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
Private
WCAC 1982/1991
W
170
5GF1128
Prehistoric
open architectural
Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
34
BLM
WCAC 1982/1991
W
50
5GF1130
Historic
farming/ranching
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
Private
WCAC 1982
SW
2175
5GF1150
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
BLM
WCAC 1982
NW
120
5GF1151
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
34
BLM
WCAC 1982
W
75
5GF1152
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
WCAC 1982
N
36
5GF1153
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
WCAC 1982
N
90
5GF1154
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
11
Private
NICK 1982
IN
--
5GF1155
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
3
BLM
WCAC 1982
SW
555
5GF1156
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
12
Private
WCAC 1982
NW
340
5GF1171
Prehistoric
open camp
Needs Data
GJFO
7S/104W
34
BLM
BLM 1983
W
180
5GF1436
Prehistoric
rock art
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
BLM 1987
NW
145
5GF1459
Prehistoric
open camp
Unknown
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
BLM 1988
SE
235
5GF1460
Prehistoric
open architectural,
ceremonial
Eligible (official)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
BLM 1988/2000
SE
100
5GF1475
Historic
camp
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
BLM
BLM 1980
E
1145
5GF1491
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
27
BLM
GRI 1989
SE
555
5GF1561
Multi
open lithic/homestead
Eligible (official)
GJFO
6S/104W
25
Private
CRA 2005
W
25
component
5GF1562
Historic
town
Eligible (official)
GJFO
6S/103W
11,14
Private
CRA 2006
IN
--
5GF1563
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
7
BLM
WCAC 1991
IN (E)
10
5GF1564
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
Unsectioned
Private
WCAC 1991
NW
110
5GF1577
Prehistoric
open camp
Needs Data
GJFO
7S/104W
33
Private
GRI 1991
W
590
5GF2121
Prehistoric
rock art
Eligible (official)
GJFO
7S/104W
11
Private
GRI 1994
NE
135
5GF2465
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
4
Private
WCRM 1977
W
230
5GF2575.1
Historic
trail/road
Not Eligible (official)
GFJO
5S/103W
21
Private/BLM
WCRM 1979
IN (NE)
45
5GF2576
Historic
isolated feature
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
17
BLM
ALP 1998
IN (W)
10
5GF2585
Historic
isolated feature
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
35
Private
MAC 1998
IN (S)
45
5GF2700
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
ALP 1998
SE
50
5GF2701
Prehistoric
open camp
Eligible (field)
GJFO
8S/104W
10
BLM
ALP 1999
E
107
5GF2761
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
5S/103W
35
Private
ALP 1999
S
90
5GF3823
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/104W
6
Private
BLM 2005
--
--
5GF3857
Historic
trash dump
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
14
Private
CRA 2005
W
70
5GF3859
Historic
trash dump
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
6
Private
CRA 2006
IN
--
5GF3861
Historic
trash dump
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
6
Private
CRA 2006
IN
--
5GF3865
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private/BLM
CRA 2006
NE
110
5GF3867
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
CRA 2006
IN
45
5GF3868
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
CRA 2006
NE
90
5GF3869
Historic
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
6S/103W
Unsectioned
Private
CRA 2006
NE
55
5GF4027
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Eligible (field)
GJFO
7S/104W
10
Unknown
UC 1977
5Ci-F40214
Prehistoric
isolated find
Not Fligihle (field)
GTFO
7S/104W
10
RT.M
ITC 1977
SW
1370
Table 3. Garfield County Sites in association with the WEP II pipeline project.
Site No.
Description
NRNP
Eligibility
Land
owner
Impacts
Recommendation
Pipeline
TUA
Access
5GF271
Prehistoric rock shelter,
Historic corral
Not Eligible
BLM
No
No po
None
5GF620
Prehistoric open camp,
Historic trash
Eligible non
contributing
Private
Yes
No
No
Blading monitor and open trench
inspection of pipeline
5GF621.1
Historic wagon road
Eligible non
contributing
Private,
BLM
No
No
Yes
None. Access road site on previously
upgraded road, no upgrading is needed
5GF640
Historic ranch
Eligible non
contributing
Private,
BLM
Yes
Yes
Yes
Blading monitor and open trench
inspection of pipeline. Barricade fence
in area of Feature 4
5GF642.2
Historic Atchee
townsite
Eligible non
contributing
Private,
BLM
No
Yes
Yes
TUA recommended dropped. Access to
new TUA follows existing upgraded
road through site, no upgrading is needed
5GF642.3
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
Private,
BLM
No
No
No
None
5GF642.4
Uintah Railroad
Eligible non-
contributing
BLM
Yes
No
No
None. Previous construction destroyed
5GF642.5
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
Private
No
No
No
None
5GF642.6
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
Private
No
No
No
None
5GF642.7
Uintah Railroad
Eligible non-
contributing
Private,
BLM
Yes
No
No
None. The segment has been previously
upgraded
5GF642.8
Uintah Railroad
Eligible, non-
contributing
Private
Yes
No
No
None
5GF642.9
Uintah Railroad
Eligible non-
contributing
Private,
BLM
Yes
Yes
Yes
None. The grade has been previously
upgraded
5GF642.10
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
Private
No
No
Yes
None. An access road (AR57) follows a
previously upgraded road across the
segment. No upgrading is needed.
5GF642.11
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
Private,
BLM
Yes
No
No
Restrict construction to existing
disturbance. Recontour and revegetate
5GF642.13
Uintah Railroad
Eligible
contributing
BLM
No
No
No
None
5GF740
Historic water pipeline
Eligible
Private,
BLM
Yes
No
No
Blading monitor and open trench
inspection of pipeline. In consultation
with Michael Selle of the BLM, White
River Field Office, additional work was
discussed to more precisely determine
the exact location of the route. This
would involve archival research at
American Gilsonite (previous attempts to
contact American Gilsonite were
fruitless) to locate any available maps
and use of a metal detector or line
locator to attempt to located any
remnants of the water line. Subsequent
to the fieldwork, the landowner (Jon D.
Hill) of the property in this area
submitted a letter to Enterprise-MAPL
denying any request to locate the water
line on his land
5GF1561
Historic ranch
Eligible
Private,
BLM
No
No
No
None
5GF1562
Historic Carbonera
townsite
Eligible
Private
Yes
No
No
Restrict construction to existing
disturbance. Recontour and revegetate
5GF2585
Historic telephone line
Not Eligible
Private,
BLM
Yes
No
No
None
5GF2575.1
Historic wagon road
Eligible
Private
No
No
No
None
5GF2575.2
Historic wagon road
Eligible non
contributing
Private
Yes
No
No
None
5GF3859
Historic trash scatter
Not Eligible
Private
Yes
No
No
None
5GF3861
Historic trash scatter
Not Eligible
Private
No
No
No
None
5GF4653
Historic irrigation ditch
Eligible
Private,
BLM
Yes
No
No
Recontour/revegetate ditch
5GF4656
Prehistoric rock shelter
Unevaluated
BLM
No
No
No
None
5GF4660
Historic irrigation ditch
Eligible
BLM
Yes
No
No
Restrict construction to existing
disturbance and fence ROW
5GF4664
Historic corral
Not Eligible
Private
No
No
Yes
None
5GF4667
Historic irrigation ditch
Eligible
Private
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recontour/revegetate ditch. Possible
bore under ditch
5GF4668
Historic Windella water
tower
Eligible
Private
No
Yes
No
Drop northwest corner of TUA
5GF4669
Historic homestead
Prehistoric lithic scatter
Eligible non
contributing
Private
Yes
No
No
Restrict construction to existing
disturbance and fence ROW
5GF4671
Historic irrigation ditch
Eligible
Private,
BLM
Yes
Yes
No
Recontour/revegetate ditch
5GF4685.1
Historic Mahaney's
Ranch to Fruita Road
Eligible non
contributing
Private,
BLM
Yes
Yes
Yes
None. The site is an upgraded county
road