Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.14 Sensitive area surveyAztec Archaeological Consultants) LLC Surve!! + Research + Excavation + GIS + Macrobotanical Anal!!sis + Tours Project No. AACN-08-00 1 BLM-CO Pennit C-66862 A Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed ETC Tee Pee Park Pipeline Project In Garfield County, Colorado Prepared For Aspen Environmental Field Services, LLC By John D. Cater PhD, RPA Principal Investigator Submitted to the Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs Field Office AACN Report Number 08-001 May, 2008 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Abstract On May 7,2008, the Montrose office of Aztec Archaeological Consultants, LLC was retained by Aspen Environmental Field Services, LLC. to conduct a Class I and Class III inventory of the proposed ETC Tee Pee Park pipeline. The survey area parallels a portion of Beaver Creek, south of Rifle, Colorado (T7S R94W, Sec I, 12, 13, and 24) in Garfield County, Colorado. The area identified for survey totaled 54.3 acres. Of the total 2.5 acres are administered by the BLM, the remainder of the project is on privately held lands. A Class I literature review was conducted electronically through the Colorado Compass system on May 7, 2008 and on May 8, 2008 at the BLM Glenwood Springs Field Office. The Class III inventory was conducted between May 9 and 10,2008. The results of the cultural resource inventory are the subject of this report. Four new sites, one previously recorded site and five isolated finds were encountered during the inventory. All of the sites are recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and no further work is recommended for the proposed project. Final project clearance is the prerogative of the Bureau of Land Management and will be considered upon review of this report. AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Table of Contents Abstract... .......................................................................................................................... .............................. i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... I Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... I Isolated Finds ........................................... .................................................................................................. 4 Culture History .................................................................................. ............................................................ 4 Paleoindian Tradition (ca. 10,000 -6,400 B.C.) ........................................................................................ 4 Archaic Tradition (ca. 6,400 B.C. -A.D. 1) ............................................................................................... 4 Fonnative Era 1400 B.C. -A.D. 1300 ..................... .................................................................................. 5 ProtohistoriclHistoric Ute (A.D. 1100 -1881) ..................................................................... ...................... 5 Euro-ArnericanHistoric (AD. I 870-Present) ............................................................................................ 6 Methods ............................ ............................................................................................................................. 6 Class I Literature Review ............................................. .............................................................................. 6 Ethnographic Literature Review ....................................................................................... .......................... 6 Class III Cultural Resources Inventory ....................................................................................................... 7 Undertaking Area .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Description of Proposed Undertaking and Results of Class III Inventory ...................................................... 8 Undertaking ............................................................................................... ................................................ 8 Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................................................... ... 9 5GF2739.1, .2, .3, and.4 ............................................................................................................................ 9 Beaver Creek Road ....................... ............................................................................................................. 9 Segment I ............................................................................. ............................................................... II Segment 2 .......................................................................................................................... .................. II Segment 3 ............................................................................................................................................ II Segment 4 ............................................................................................................................................ II Eligibility Recommendations ......................... ...................................................................................... II Project Impact .............................................................................................. ...................................... ,. 12 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 12 5GF4169.1 ............................................................................................................................................... 12 "Road to Fogarty's House" ....................................................................................................................... 12 Eligibility Recommendations ................................................ ............................................................... 12 Project Impact. .................................................................................................................... ................. 12 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 14 5GF4170.1 .............................. ................................................................................................................. 14 Eligibility Recommendations ...................................................... ......................................................... 14 Project Impact. .......................................................................................................................... ........... 14 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 14 5GF4171.1 .................................... ........................................................................................................... 16 "Irrigating Ditch" ..................................................................... ................................................................ 16 Eligibility Recommendations ....................................................................................................... ........ 16 Project Impact.. .................................................................................................................................... 16 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 16 Summary and Overall Management Recommendations.......................................... ..................................... 16 Overall Management Recommendations .................................................................................................. 18 References Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 1. General Project Location ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map .................................................... ................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Site 5GF2379 Segments I -4 ............................................................................................ ........... 10 Figure 4. Site 5GF4169.1 ............................................................................................................................. 13 11 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 5. Site 5GF4170.1 ............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6. Site GF4171.1 .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendix A: Site Forms Appendix B: Isolated Finds Appendix C: Nearby Site Map Appendix D: Photo Log Appendix E: Pipeline Locational Data III AAC Project AACN-200S-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Introduction On April 7, 200S, the Montrose office of Aztec Archaeological Consultants, LLC was retained by Aspen Environmental Field Services, LLC. to conduct a Class I and Class III inventory of the proposed ETC Tee Pee Park pipeline. The survey area parallels a portion of Beaver Creek, south of Rifle, Colorado (T7S R94W, Sec I, 12, 13, and 24) in Garfield County, Colorado. The project is expected to be 13,900 feet long with a right-of-way of 60 feet. This APE totals 3S.2 acres, 1.7 acres of which are on BLM administered land. In discussions with the BLM a ISO foot buffer zone centered on the project centerline was surveyed. The cultural resource survey included 54.3 acres roughly paralleling Beaver Creek that was intensely surveyed. Of this total 2.5 acres were on lands administered by the BLM. A Class I literature review was conducted electronically through the Colorado Compass system on May 7, 200S and on May S, 200S at the BLM Glenwood Springs Field Office. The Class III inventory was conducted between May 9 and 10, 200S. The results of the cultural resource inventory are the subject of this report. Four new sites, one previously recorded site, and five isolated finds were encountered during the inventory. All of the sites are recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and no further work is recommended for the proposed project. Final project clearance is the prerogative of the Bureau of Land Management and wiJI be considered upon review of this report. Project Objectives The primary objectives of the Class I literature review and Class III survey was to identify cultural reSources within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project area. It also served to identify the nature and extent of those resources, and assess potential eligibility for the purpose of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, the potential impact of the project on significant cultural resources was assessed to aid in the preservation of those resources or to help develop appropriate mitigative strategies. These objectives were met through review of the existing literature and intensive pedestrian survey of the project area. Once cultural resources were identified, they were carefully documented, following the standards established by the State of Colorado for the treatment of cultural properties. As part of the documentation process, sites were evaluated regarding their integrity and potential to yield important scientific information and to determine potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP). These evaluations are an important part of the documentation process, because various pieces of historic preservation legislation establish site significance as the critical factor in the management of cultural resources. Cultural resources that are determined to be significant by the appropriate agencies require careful management. Potential impacts to the resources resulting from project developments are assessed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the appropriate managing agency. If a project is likely to impact a significant cultural resource, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) may be consulted and may make comment on the project. Through consultation with the SHPO, Managing Agency, and the Council, a plan is formulated to mitigate potential impacts to the cultural resources in question. 1 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 1. General Project Location 2 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map 3 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Isolated Finds Although isolated artifacts can be used to address broad research questions, the artifacts are of limited scientific value because of the context in which they are found. Isolated finds may help identifY transportation corridors, hunting areas, or trade routes but are generally not considered significant cultural resources, and are not eligible for the National Register. Culture History The culture history of the Northern Colorado River Basin Unit (NCRBU), as discussed by Reed and Metcalf (1999) is quite diverse in cultural occupations. Paleoindian, Archaic, Gateway Tradition, Protohistoric, Historic Ute, and Euroamerican cultures have all left their mark in the region. Despite one hundred years of study, however, the NCRBU region is still very poorly understood. Paleoindian Tradition (ca. 10,000 -6,400 B.C.) The Paleoindian period is defined as the earliest human occupation of the New World. There has been little documentation of this period in the NCRBU. Indeed of the 13,791 components in the aAHP database only 171 (I percent) were identified as Paleoindian (Reed and Metcalf 1999:52). Discussion of the period is based on evidence from other areas in the region. This period reflects a nomadic lifestyle with seasonal occupation of the region, associated with a subsistence economy primarily of migratory large game hunting and wild plant gathering for survival. Most of the species hunted are now extinct. It must be noted that no extinct fauna have been recovered in association with Clovis Tradition artifacts within the NCRBU study area. Goshen and Folsom sites are few in number and late Paleoindian sites may consist of a different adaptation than that found on the High Plains. It has been suggested that the Foothill-Mountain adaptation noted in Wyoming is more applicable to the late Paleoindian period in the NCRBU (Reed and Metcalf 1999:56-57). Sites are very rare, but occasionally isolated projectile points are found in the region. Additional sites dating to this period are expected in the region, but it is likely that they remain hidden or have been salvaged and re-occupied by succeeding cultures, thus obscuring their footprint. Archaic Tradition (ca. 6,400 B.C. -A.D. 1) Despite the relative dearth of data for the Paleoindian Period, the succeeding Archaic Period retains the largest number of components in the NCRBU (1,316) and a large amount of excavation data. Currently the Archaic in the study unit is divided into four periods; Pioneer, Settled, Transitional, and Tenninal. According to Reed and Metcalf (1999:79) the Pioneer Period (8350-6450 B.P.) was the period in which Paleo indian traditions were completely replaced by new settlement and subsistence systems within all of the drainages within the NCRBU. Although hunting and gathering were clearly still the major subsistence mode it is likely that areas were exploited seasonally within a smaller aerial range than that noted in the late Paleoindian period. Additionally, the demise of Pleistocene mega-fauna required a shift toward smaller game animals. The Settled Period (6450 B.P-4450 B.P.) represents a growth in local diversity regarding material culture and the first preserved evidence of habitations. This was a centralplace foraging adaptation oriented toward predictable winter habitations and more seasonal variability at higher elevations. There is wide-spread use of processing features and a concomitant increase in the use of ground stone. The Transitional Period (4450 B.P.-2950 B.P.) is really a continuation of the previous period but with important changes in sedentism, and more intensive use of higher elevations. The final temporal separation is the Terminal Period (2950 B.P.-1950 B.P) which represents an apparent period of stress and an associated increase with experimentation with new tools and technologies including the bow and domestic crops such as com (see especially Greubel and Cater 2001). 4 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Formative Era 1400 B.C. -A.D. 1300 The fonnative Period in the NCRBU represents the mixture of two different adaptations. The first, and dominant, is the continued settlement and subsistence practice of hunting and gathering that is clearly no more than a continuation of the Archaic. This first group has been defined tentatively by Reed and Metcalf (1999:98) as representing the Aspen tradition. The second adaptation is that of groups who practiced horticulture to some extent. This includes Anasazi occupation in the southern and western portions of the study unit. Additionally Freemont occupations are known from the western portion of the unit. An additional adaptation in the region is what Reed has identified as the Gateway tradition (Reed and Metcalf 1999:131-132). The latter of these adaptations is not without problems but may be an amalgam of Anasazi and Freemont groups. There are 743 components that date to the Fonnative Era within the NCRBU. The Aspen tradition is described as the "taxonomic equivalent of the Gateway traditions ... and a sort of parallel construct to the Uinta phase of the Wyoming Basin" (Reed and Metcalf 1999: 141). It appears to be represented by intensive hunting and gathering, the wide-spread use of the bow, cornernotched projectile points, and an increase in the use of thennal pits. The end of the tradition is marked by a decreased number of radiocarbon dates and replacement of the comer-notched projectile with the sidenotched projectile. Within the horticultural adaptation sphere, the Anasazi occupations of portions of the unit are the most clearly defined. These generally consist of substantial structures, easily identified pottery types, and Pueblo tradition rock art. It is, however, likely that less obvious Anasazi use areas are present throughout the NCRBU study area. The Freemont occupations are less-well defmed but appear in clusters in certain areas of the study unit. Ceramics that are clearly Freemont in origin are also found across the region. Freemont rock art has also been noted in discrete locations across the region. Habitations are generally small but do include pit houses (Reed and Metcalf 1999:112). Reed presents the Gateway tradition as one that represents a mixture of horticulture and hunting/gathering, much like the Freemont of the region. He believes that this adaptation represents an indigenous group of people who were strongly influenced by both the Freemont and Anasazi. Reed points out that "Gateway tradition sites yield almost exclusively late Anasazi ceramic types and may have rectangular rooms and roomblocks. Key elements of Anasazi culture are absent, however, including the use ofkivas, highly patterned site layout, extensive use of pit structures, and evidence oflocal ceramic production" (Reed and Metcalf 1999: 132). ProtohistoriclHistoric Ute (A.D. 1100 -1881) It is currently unknown when Ute people first arrived in the Colorado mountains, but Reed and Metcalf (1999) tentatively place it around AD. 1100. References to the Ute People can be found in the earliest Spanish documents from colonization of the region in the 1600s. Recent work on early Ute sites (Greubel and Cater 2001; Cater 2002,2003) has led to new insights regarding early habitation of the region. In many ways, early Ute archaeology is similar to that of the early Navajo. Wickiups were the main fonn of structure and favored areas appear to have been occupied seasonally for long periods oftime. It is likely that home-ranges for Ute bands included a seasonal round which led them from low elevations through higher elevations for optimal resource exploitation. Reed and Metcalf (1999: 150) propose to maintain Reed's earlier (1988) concept of two phases for Ute Occupation. The Canalla Phase is dated between AD. 1100 and 1650 and the Antero Phase has a date range of A.D. 1650 to 1881. In the Canalla phase, Ute groups were mainly pedestrian and relied on hunting and gathering for subsistence. European trade goods certainly made their way into Ute culture in the latter portion of the phase. The Antero phase represents the adoption of the horse, which transfonned the Ute culture into an equestrian people. Although remaining a hunting and gathering group, their range increased dramatically. Ute raids on Spanish settlements in New Mexico and southern Colorado led to punitive action by the Spanish between AD. 1637 and 1641. Raids and intermittent warfare led to numerous treaties with the Euroamericans up to the Reservation period. 5 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline There are 748 known Protohistoric Ute components within the NCRBU (Reed and Metcalf 1999:52). Euro-American Historic (A.D. 1870-Present) Due to the continued raiding parties of Ute after the region was opened to settlement by EuroAmericans the United States led a campaign against the Ute, forcing them onto reservations by the early 1870s. The discovery of gold and other prized minerals in the 1870's led the way for additional migration and settlement to the area and the majority of the modern state of the unit was well established by the early 1900s. Ranching and fanning were the major mode of subsistence in the late 1800s, along with mining and logging. All of the modern cities extant at present were established in this time period. The establishment of rail lines allowed additional Euroamerican migration to the area. The area continues to change and current oil and gas development of the region will undoubtedly have a marked effect on the region's history. Methods The proposed undertaking required that a Class I literature review and a Class III cultural resources inventory be completed prior to project clearance. Class I Literature Review The literature review was conducted through the Colorado Compass system on May 7, 2008 prior to the initiation of the Class III inventory. The purpose of the literature search was to detennine if any cultural materials had been previously documented within I mile (1.6 Km) of the proposed project area. There are five previously recorded sites within a mile ofthe proposed project. The previously recorded sites are listed in Table \. Two sites were within the current project area; 5GFI329 (Open Camp) and 5GF2739.1 (Beaver Creek Road). Both sites were revisited during the project; however, 5GF1329 no longer appears to exist due to construction activities. In addition to updating site GF2739.1, several other segments of this historic roadway were encountered and recoded during the current project. There have been 42 cultural resource inventories within one mile ofthe project area. These include clearances for the Rifle San Juan Power line and various oil and gas related projects such as well pads, pipelines and access roads. Table 1. Sites within 1 Mile Site Number Site Type Recorder 5GF2058 Open Lithic GRll994 5GFI750 Open Camp GRl2004IMAC 1993 *5GF1329 Open Camp MAC 199311999 Nickens 1985 *5GF2739.1 Historic Road MAC 1999 5GF2796 Open Lithic GRl2000 * wlthm project area Ethnographic Literature Review No known TCPs or SPs are located within a mile of the project area. 6 AAC Project AACN-2008-00 I ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory A standard archaeological survey of the project area was conducted. A standard archaeological survey consists of walking the project area in parallel transects spaced 10m apart. The project area consisted of canyon bottom and slope including portions of the east and west sides of Beaver Creek. Native vegetation includes aspen, limited ponderosa, scrub oak and Mountain Alder on the southern end of the project area and juniper, scrub oak, Mountain Alder, and sagebrush on the northern end of the survey corridor. A variety of grasses and cacti were encountered across the study area. Much of the project area appears to have been logged historically. Soils in the project area consist of alluvial clay, dark in color with loose tabular rock, local sandstone outcrops, and basalt boulders. Elevation ranges from 7,000 ft (2,134m) to 8,120 feet (2,475 m). Ground cover varied across the project area. Some areas retained as much as 90 percent cover, while others were entirely clear. Duff from the mixed conifer and oak overstory contributed to the low visibility of the present ground surface. Overall, the ground visibility for the project is considered to have been from 55 to 70 percent depending on location and amount of vegetation. Approximately 200 m of the project area, at its southern terminus retained between 85 and 90 percent snow coverage. AAC considers the survey to have been adequate despite limited visibility because of the steep slopes along Beaver Creek which would have been generally unattractive to aboriginal peoples. Historic-era features were clearly evident on the ground surface even in dense vegetation. Conditions during the survey ranged from overcast and snowing to clear and warm. Definitions For the purposes of this inventory: A site is defined as a discrete locus of patterned human activity greater than 50 years of age and consisting of 5 or more prehistoric artifacts with or without features or over 50 historic artifacts with associated features. Single isolated hearth with no other associated artifacts or features will also be recorded as a site (From OAHP, FO Standards and Practices). When an artifact was encountered, it was marked and the area thoroughly searched for additional cultural materials. If additional materials were noted, then the entire area was carefully inspected to identify the extent and nature of the cultural resource. This information was then entered on standard Colorado data management forms with the appropriate additional forms attached. The resource was mapped via Thalus GPS (accuracy sub-metric) and was then photographed (Appendix A). Undertaking Area The project is expected to be 13,900 feet long with a right-of-way of 60 feet. This APE totals 38.2 acres, 1.7 acres of which are on BLM administered land. In discussions with the BLM a 150 foot buffer zone centered on the project centerline was surveyed. The cultural resource survey included 54.3 acres roughly paralleling Beaver Creek that was intensely surveyed. Of this total 2.5 acres were on lands administered by the BLM. Legal locations for areas surveyed on the proposed Tee Pee Pipeline are presented in Table 2 below. 7 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Table 2. Legals of areas surveyed for the ETC Tee Pee Pipeline. Legal Location-l-'. s Map Source Elevation Ownership Surveyed Area T7S R94W Section 1 NMamm 7000-7050 ft BLM-GSFO 2.5 acres SEl-'. SWv. SEV. Peak, CO T7S R94W Section 12 7050-7400 ft Private 51.8 acres NE&SEV. NW NEV. NE&SE v. SWv. NE V. SW v. SW V. NE V. NEV. NWV. SEV. NWV. NWV. SEV. SWv. NWV. SEV. SEl-'. NWV. SEV. NWl-'. SWv. SEV. NEV. SWv. SEV. SWl-'. SWv. SEV. SEV. SWv. SEl-'. 7400-7842 ft Private T7S R94W Section 13 NEV.NWV.NEV. SE V. NW V. NE V. NEV. SWv. NEV. SEV. SWv. NEV. NEl<iNWl<iSEl<i SW V. NE V. NE V. SEV. NWV. SEV. 7842-8120 ft Private NEV. SWv. SEV. SEV. SWv. SEV. T7S R94W Section 24 NE\4 NW~NE~ NW~NEy.jNE'l.f SEV. NWV. NEV. NEl-'. SWv. NEV. NWV. SEV. NEV. SWv. SEV. NEV. Description of Proposed Undertaking and Results of Class III Inventory Undertaking The proposed undertaking is for a proposed natural gas pipeline. Activities wiII include clearing of right-of-way, trenching, welding, and pipeline burial. Additionally reclamation activities are anticipated. Results The inventory resulted in the identification of four new sites, one previously recorded site, and five isolated finds. All of the sites are recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of 8 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Historic Places (NRHP). The sites are discussed below and further detailed in Appendix A. Isolated finds are presented in Table 3 and discussed in Appendix B. Table 3. Isolated Finds IF# and CO # Description UTMs (Zone 13) IF I I.) Fine-grained Sandstone metate fragment. Grinding 256390mE 5GF4172 surface indicates pecking. Redlbrown in color, 4371216mN 8 x 7.5 x 3cm 2.) Red chert tertiary flake, no bulb, no terminus, 2.3 x 1.3 x 0.2 cm 3.) White chert tertiary flake, no bulb, no terminus, 1 x 0.5 x 0.1 cm IF 2 White chert tertiary thinning flake 1.2 x 1 x 0.1 em 256374mE 4371488mN 5GF4173 IF 3 Graylblue quartzite primary flake. Bulb of Force present. 256379mE 4371496mN 5GF4174 Flake complete, 4 x 2.5 x 1 em IF 4 Chalcedony tertiary flake, no bulb, no terminus, I x 1 x 256387mE 4371512mN 5GF4175 0.5 cm IF 5 1.) Redlbrown chert secondary flake, no bulb, no 2356397mE 437 1 520mN 5GF4176 terminus, 3 x 2.5 x 0.5 em 2.) White chert secondary flake, no bulb, no terminus, 1.7 x 1.2 x 0.5 cm Archaeological Sites Five archaeological sites, including one segment of a previously documented roadway (5GF2739.1) were encountered within the project area. All of the sites documented date to the latter halfof the nineteenth and early portion of the twentieth centuries. These include four roadway segments and an irrigation ditch. All of these resources were identified during the literature review on the 1911 GLO map of the area. 5GF2739.1, .2, .3, and.4 Beaver Creek Road The project centerline parallels portions of the historic Beaver Creek Road. The roadway travels roughly north-south along the course of Beaver Creek (Figure 3). Although the majority of the current road follows the original path, several abandoned segments of the roadway were encountered away from the current travel way during the current project. 9 AAC Project AACN-2008-00l ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 3. Site 5GF2379 Segments 1 -4. 10 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Segment 1 The site was first documented by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants in 1999 (Metcalf 1999) in association with the Tom Brown Federal Number 1-43 well pad (5GF2739.1). At the time of their documentation a segment (Segment 1) was noted within the bounds of their project area (190 m long) and described as "well maintained, crowned and ditched" with gravel. The nature of this segment has not changed since the initial documentation. Segment 2 During the current documentation, the current route of the Beaver Creek road was documented as a second segment of roadway. It is assumed that much of this route follows the original route, with the exceptions of Segments 3 and 4. Segment two is 13,078 feet (3,986 m) in length, terminating at the USFS boundary line, which also marks the end of the current project. The roadway is very much the same as described by Metcalf for Segment 1. It measures 9m in width in most areas and consists of a wellmaintained crowned and ditched gravel road. The segment crosses Beaver Creek in two locations and the bridges in these areas consist of dirt/gravel over modem galvanized metal culverts. No engineering features dating to the original road were noted, nor were any historic artifacts encountered along the route. Segment 3 Segment 3 of the Beaver Creek Road is located within Section 12 and consists of an abandoned section of the roadway that extends 618 feet (188 m) in a northwesterly direction from the current road route. It begins as an intersection with Segment 2 and is terminated by a modem well pad on the north (RU 31 and 32-12) and the current road into Porcupine Creek. At present the segment consists of an earthen depression (ca. 10-20 cm) that is 3 m in width. No engineering features were extant and a single piece of what may have been a can was the only associated artifact. Segment 4 Segment 4, located in Section 13, leaves the current route of the Beaver Creek Road, climbing the side of the canyon in a southwesterly direction. It then turns southward along a slight bench to the intersection of the segment with Site 5GF4170.1, a segment of unnamed road described below. Segment 4 begins to wane as heavy brush has moved inward along its course just past the intersection. Like Segment 3, Segment 4 consists of a linear depression that is 3 m in width. The segment is 782 feet (238 m) long. No engineering features were noted, nor were any artifacts present. The northeast/downhill slope of the segment appears to be eroding, possibly due to ATV and livestock use. What is ultimately important regarding this segment is the intersection between it and an unnamed road leading to Log Mesa. This indicates that the Metcalf assessment of Beaver Creek Road should be expanded from only serving farms and ranches to also serving commercial interests such as logging. Eligibility Recommendations Segment 1 of Site 5GF2739 has been officially determined ineligible by the OAHP. Segments 2, 3, and 4 appear to retain the quality of integrity oflocation only. All other qualities of integrity have been removed via modern use of the roadway, continued maintenance, and neglect in the case of Segments 3 and 11 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline 4. Although the segments of this site clearly meet the 50-year guideline it is unlikely that they retain any potential for additional, important, scientific information. Based on these observations, Segments 2, 3, and 4 of Site 5GF2739 are not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Project Impact Site 5GF4169.2 is located within the construction zone of the project area and will therefore be directly impacted by the project. The southern end of Segment 2 adjoins the project area and will also be directly impacted. Segment 4 will be directly impacted at its northern intersection with the current Beaver Creek Road/project APE. Management Recommendations Although a small portion of the site will be directly impacted by the proposed pipeline project, the site has been recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further archaeological work is recommended in association with the current project. 5GF4169.1 "Road to Fogarty's House" Site 5GF4169.1 was encountered within the current project area in the south-central portion of survey area. The site is a roadway identified on the 1911 GLO map as the "Road to Fogarty's House." Currently the roadway serves as access to Encana property and only a small portion was visually inspected from the locked gate (Figure 4). The road branches from the Beaver Creek road in a northeasterly direction, climbing the west side of Beaver Creek Canyon. The approximately 100 m-Iong segment has been completely upgraded for modern vehicular use and is currently 9 m in width. It is crowned and ditched and has at some point in the recent past been graveled, however, the majority of the gravel now lies along the side of the roadway. The current USGS 7.5' N Mamm Peak map indicates a structure along the road route approximately Y, mile to the east of the project area. This may be the Fogarty residence. Based on the unofficial road name on the GLO map, it appears that this road was used as access to a ranch or farm and was most likely associated not only with access but the transportation of goods to and from the residence. Eligibility Recommendations Site 5GF4169.1 appears to retain the quality of integrity of location only. All other qualities of integrity have been removed via modern use of the roadway and continued maintenance. Although the segment of this site clearly meets the 50-year guideline it is unlikely that the site retains any potential for additional, important, scientific infonnation. Based on these observations, the site is not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Project Impact Site 5GF4169.1 is located within the construction zone of the project area at the intersection of the site and the current Beaver Creek Road. A minimal portion of the site will be directly impacted. 12 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 4. Site SGF4169.1 13 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Management Recommendations Although a small portion of the site will be directly impacted by the proposed pipeline project, the site has been recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. No further archaeological work is recommended in association with the current project. 5GF4170.1 Site 5GF4170.1 was encountered while documenting a segment of the Beaver Creek Road. This site also appears on the 1911 GLO map as an unnamed roadway leading to Log Mesa, about Y, mile west of the project area (Figure 5). The road may still be used by ATV and horse traffic but it is unimproved. Currently it presents as a 3 m wide cut through the existing vegetation. The roadway is represented by a shallow (10-20 cm) depression in the modern ground surface running perpendicular to the Beaver Creek Road (Segment 4). The portion of road documented for this project runs from the Beaver Creek Road intersection due west up a steep, rock-strewn incline 442 feet (135 m). No artifacts or engineering features were present within the segment. It will be noted that our GPS plots the road segment slightly north of where it was drafted on the GLO map but we feel that this is the correct road and that the discrepancy is due to errors on the original GLO map. As mentioned for the Beaver Creek Road, it is apparent that the road system in this area was not only used to access ranches and farms, but there was likely a commercial aspect as well. This road very likely served as a route into Log Mesa and as a route from which logs were transported out of the area. Although no records of this activity were found in research, the name of the mesa is indicative of activities that took place there. Currently there are no trees extant on the mesa. Eligibility Recommendations Site 5GF4170.1 appears to retain the quality of integrity oflocation only. All other qualities of integrity have been removed or were never present. Although the segment of this site clearly meets the 50-year guideline it is unlikely that the site retains any potential for additional, important, scientific infonnation. Based on these observations, the site is not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Project Impact Site 5GF4170.1 is located approximately 40 m west of the project area on a steep embankment above the proposed pipeline right-of-way. No impact from the current project is expected. Management Recommendations This segment of 5GF4170.1 is recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Additionally, the segment is outside of the proposed APE. No further archaeological work is recommended in association with the current project. 14 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 5. Site 5GF4170.1 15 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline 5GF4171.1 "Irrigating Ditch" Site 5GF4171.1 was encountered within the current project area in Section 13. The site is located across the Beaver Creek Road, east of the Log Mesa road discussed above (Figure 6). The site is listed on the 1911 GLO map as an irrigation ditch. The segment of ditch recorded for the current project was 442 feet (135 m) in length. The ditch currently measures 1m wide and is evident on the ground surface as a linear depression. It appears that the ditch was earthen. Unfortunately the southern head of the ditch has been removed by the current route of Beaver Creek Road and no evidence of a headgate was present at the time of the inventory. Currently the ditch is in heavy oak brush and is overgrown but can be easily traced along the topography. It is likely that it served to bring water from Beaver Creek to ranches and farms father north in the valley. Eligibility Recommendations Site 5GF4171.1 appears to retain the quality of integrity of location only. All other qualities of integrity have been removed or were never present. Although the segment of this site clearly meets the 50-year guideline it is unlikely that the site retains any potential for additional, important, scientific information. Based on these observations, the site is not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Project Impact Site 5GF4171.1 is located approximately 30 m west of the project area on a steep embankment above the proposed pipeline right-of-way. No impact from the current project is expected. Management Recommendations This segment of 5GF4171.1 is recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Additionally, the segment is outside of the proposed APE. No further archaeological work is recommended in association with the current project. Summary and Overall Management Recommendations A total of 54.3 acres was surveyed in association with the current project. This survey resulted in the identification of four new sites, one previously recorded site, and five isolated artifacts. The project area was dominated by historic components. All five sites in the project area date to at least the tum of the twentieth century. Indeed, only the isolated finds are representative of earlier land use. None of the isolates were diagnostic and it is thus impossible to identify age for these artifacts. The artifacts were all encountered near a previously documented "open camp" (5GFI329) that even through testing could not be assigned to a cultural/temporal period. This site was determined to be ineligible and since has been removed via well pad construction activities. OUT research indicates that other such sites are within one mile of the project area. It seems likely that topography plays a large role in answering why 16 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Figure 6. Site GF4171.1 17 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline additional prehistoric sites were not encountered in the current project area. The project lies within Beaver Creek canyon with steep slopes that would have been unattractive to Native Americans. Historically the project area appears to have been used heavily, mainly by settlers associated with farming and ranching, but also conunercially in association with logging. Logging may have been limited as very little information regarding this activity was encountered in the records for the inunediate area. The majority of the sites documented are associated with transportation with the exception of a single irrigation ditch. Overall Management Recommendations The project scope is oriented toward the construction of a natural gas pipeline. The construction of pipelines directly threatens archaeological sites in the region and careful management of the resource is required. Within the current project area none of the cultural resources encountered are reconunended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; however, these are only segments of the properties. Other segments may well retain enough integrity to make them eligible and care must be given to additional surveys in the future. Aztec Archaeology reconunends that project clearance be granted for the proposed ETC Tee Pee Park pipeline with no further archaeological stipulation. Final project clearance is the prerogative of the BLM and will be considered following review of this report. 18 AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Cater, John D. 2002 2003 References Cited Ute and Navajo Ceramics: A View from Western Colorado. Southwestern Lore 68 (3): 17-25 A New Perspective on the Seasonal Use of Ute Architecture in Western Colorado. Southwestern Lore 69 (l): 1-11. Greubel, Rand A., and John D. Cater 2001 Schmidt Site (5MN4253). In The Transcolorado Natural Gas Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project, Western Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Compiled by Alan D. Reed; Chapter 21. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, Colorado. Reed, Alan D. 1988 Ute Cultural Chronology. In Archaeology of the Eastern Ute: A Symposium. Edited by Paul R. Nickens, Pp. 79-101. CCP A Occasional Papers No. I.Colorado Council for Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council for Professional Archaeologists, Denver. 19 AAC Project AACN-2008-00 1 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Appendix A: Site Fonns For Agency Use Only A AAC Project AACN-2008-00l Appendix B: Isolated Finds For Agency Use Only B ETC Tee Pee Pipeline AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Appendix C: Nearby Site Map c AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Appendix D: Project Route Maps D AAC Project AACN-2008-001 ETC Tee Pee Pipeline Appendix E: Photo Log E