Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.12 LSR Historic Report - Reid.MetcalfLake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan/PUD Amendment December 2025 Exhibit 12 | Historic Research & Archaeological Report R E I D • A R C H I T E C T S , I N C 412 North Mill Street • Aspen, Colorado, 81612 970 920 9225 • vkr@reidarchitects.com Longhorn Opportunity Fund #1 c/o Tim Malloy 402 Park Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 12/16/23 Via: tim@tgmalloy.com Dear Tim, Attached is the Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological report prepared by Reid Architects with Metcalf Archaeological Assoc. As you will see both the historic buildings and the potential for archaeological finds on this site are significant and efforts should be made to preserve these resources. As with much of the Roaring Fork Valley this area has a history of both European settlement and evidence of use by indigenous peoples that date well into the past. The report makes several recommendations related to both the preservation of the cabin and the potential archaeological resources. The most significant is a more detailed archaeological survey and the stabilization of the historic cabin and pole barn. The report also recommends an adjustment to Lot 13’s rear yard setback to provide some additional relief to the cabin. Let me know if you need more information for the land use application. Regards, Suzannah Reid Reid Architects, inc. Lake Springs Ranch Historic Resource and Archaeological Report Prepared by Reid Architects, Inc & Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 412 North Mill St Aspen Colorado 81612 vkr@reidarchitects.com December 14, 2023 Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Page 1 of 5 Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Background Reid Architects, inc was contracted by Longhorn Opportunity Fund #1 to review the architectural and archaeological conditions on the Lake Springs Ranch Parcel to determine the potential effect of the proposed development activities on the parcel. Reid Architects has previously surveyed the larger Quigley Ranch and provided an analysis of the significance and integrity of the remaining historic buildings on the Quigley Ranch. That survey found that only two log buildings retained enough integrity to be worthy of preservation. The Quigley Cabin, identified in this survey, is the only one that is currently on the Lake Springs parcel. The report only peripherally referred to the pole barn, which was looked at more closely in this survey. Reid Architects & Metcalf Archaeological visited the site on October 24, 2023 and looked at the site and buildings in more detail. At that time the general location of the spring was identified, and the evolution of the ponds was discussed. The surveyors also walked the site in an effort to locate the previously surveyed archaeological sites. Metcalf returned on November 7, 2023 to make an additional attempt to locate two previously identified sites, which were not found. The details of Metcalf’s findings are attached to this document and summarized below. Summary Architectural Resources: The Quigley Ranch was a family farming and ranching operation that was characteristic of the type of settlement early in the 1900s in the Roaring Fork Valley. Many immigrants came to the Roaring Fork Valley in search of land and a livelihood that they could not find in Europe. Christopher Quigley arrived in the US from Ireland in 1909. Shortly after that he came to the Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Page 2 of 5 Roaring Fork Valley. His wife Mary, also Irish, arrived a year later. They had three sons who continued to raise families and work on the Farm into the 1980s. Only a small number of historic ranch buildings remain, two of which are located on the Lake Springs Ranch parcel. The two buildings are both agricultural buildings, likely used for hay storage and shelter for people and animals as the cattle was grazed in the meadows adjacent to the spring. The two buildings have suffered from considerable deferred maintenance but retain a high level of integrity due to a lack of changes to the historic setting, materials, workmanship, design, feeling and association. Archaeological Resources: The archaeologist engaged for this project was asked to review two previously identified sites that lie on the Lake Springs Ranch parcel. The two sites were previously identified in completed in the 1970s and returned a number of results, two of which were located on the Lake Springs Ranch parcel. The review performed for this report found that both the sites that were identified in the 1975 as part of a large survey of this basin. At that time the survey project recorded 49 archaeological sites in a 55 mile long area. 14 of the 55 sites are within one mile of the Lake Springs Ranch parcel with two of those within the property boundary. Several of the 14 sites in the general area were determined to be archaeologically significant. Present day review of the two Lake Springs Ranch sites found no remnants of the features that were described by the 1976 survey. This may be due in part to the lack of precise location mapping from the 1970s or the loss of material due to continued ranching operations, artifact collection, or vandalism. Findings The historic cabin and pole barn are significant as indicators of the needs and practices of family farmers and ranchers in the Spring Valley area. Though they are modest buildings they retain considerable integrity and continue to tell the story of the ranching and farming in the early part of the 20th century. Both are historically important in the region and are indicative of the history and use of the Spring Valley area. See below for specific recommendations. The buildings need stabilization and there are several areas where the impacts of the proposed development can be mitigated to retain the integrity of the site and setting. While the preservation of open space around the ponds and historic buildings is a good step. The preservation of the existing character of the landscape is also important. A preservation plan should address both the impacts of construction activities, including above and below ground interventions. Finally, the proximity of the buildable area on Lot 13 has the potential to heavily impact the cabin and site. Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Page 3 of 5 The archaeological component of this survey did not find the two previously recorded sites on the property. However, previous investigations in the area have resulted in significant archaeological finds. Due to the high probability of archaeological finds in the area, the archaeologist recommends that the developer undertake a Class III archaeological survey. This type of survey could reveal important information on the prehistoric uses of the site. The archaeologist can also provide information on the proper treatment of any finds and appropriate practices during the implementation of the development plan and the individual house sites. This is an area of known human settlement that extends back a thousand years. Some historically important finds have been identified in nearby areas, leading to the conclusion that further investigation on the site is warranted. Notes on the Anticipated Submittal Requirements Areas of Paleontological, Historical, or Archaeological Importance. ¥ Map and/or description of all sites of paleontological, historical, or archaeological interest. o This report includes a full description of the areas of paleontological, historical, or archaeological interest, including maps and appendices related to the sites in question. ¥ State historical site survey and/ or inventory form(s) completed by a qualified professional acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Officer for all paleontological, historical, or archaeological resources affected by the project. o The cultural resource survey and the archaeological report were both completed in accordance with the State Historic Preservation Officer’s standards as set by History Colorado. ¥ Proof of compliance with the procedures for notification to the State Historical Society, State Archaeologist, and to applicable local historical societies/ organizations upon discovery of historical or archaeological resources during the construction or implementation of the Project. o This report does not provide proof of compliance with procedures for notification during the construction or implementation of the project. The report does make recommendations that the applicant should engage a preservation architect to oversee stabilization of the historic buildings and that a Class III survey of the parcel be completed by a qualified archaeologist to document the area and provide recommendations for appropriate handling of any resources found. ¥ Description of the impacts and Net Effect of the project on sites of paleontological, historical, or archaeological interest. Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Page 4 of 5 o The report includes a description of the anticipated effects on sites of paleontological, historical, or archaeological interest as well as recommendations for adjustments and procedures to minimize these effects. Review Standard relating to Areas of Paleontological, Historical or Archaeological Importance: Standard: The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historical, or archaeological importance. Response: The project does have the potential to significantly degrade areas of Paleontological, Historical or Archaeological Importance. The site plan as proposed does respect and allow for the preservation of the architectural resources identified in this report. However, potential development is quite close to the historic Quigley cabin which has the potential to degrade the integrity of the cabin. This is also an area of known human settlement that extends back a thousand years. Some historically important finds have been identified in nearby areas, leading to the conclusion that potential for additional finds is high and that those finds are likely to be archaeologically important. The construction of new roads, utilities, grading and new house construction has the potential to permanently destroy those areas. 1. The analysis of the proposed site plan finds that the location of the proposed Lot 13 property line at 5.5’ from the Quigley cabin and the 10’ internal rear yard setback is not sufficient to preserve the setting, feeling and association aspects of integrity related to the cabin. A more appropriate separation can be found by creating a larger rear yard setback. The proposed 10’ setback should be increased to 25’, allowing for a minimum of 30’ separation between new construction and the historic cabin. 2. The cabin and the pole barn will need to be protected from construction activities as the development gets underway. The area should be completely fenced during construction activities and additional appropriate stabilization should be undertaken to ensure that the fragile structures are not damaged by vibration or nearby work. All subgrade utilities should be located well away from the historic resources. This stabilization should be overseen by a qualified preservation architect and included in a larger preservation plan for the buildings, once the full scope of the development is being implemented. 3. The existing grove of trees between the cabin and the pole barn are an important component of the setting of the historic buildings. Every effort should be made to limit impacts to this grove. The meadow setting is also an important feature particularly as the foreground in the view from the CR114. Future landscaping plans should respect the agricultural character of the landscape in this area. A plan should be in place to protect the open space area from invasive species and preserve the existing grasses. Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Page 5 of 5 4. The development plan includes a trail system adjacent to the ponds and the historic cabin. This provides an opportunity to install some interpretive signage that could inform users of the importance of the local history as represented by the buildings. The signage could be created and installed as part of the above stabilization project. 5. The largest potential for degradation comes from the overall potential for archaeological finds located on this parcel. This area is a known site of human occupation prior to European settlement and the preservation of the distant past is as critical a component of the broader story of our region as the named settlers of the region. A Class III archaeological survey should be undertaken to facilitate the creation of a preservation plan for any prehistoric sites identified during the more intensive review of the site. The potential for damage exists both for surface and subgrade disturbance on this site and those should be addressed by the archaeological preservation plan. The Class III survey and the preservation plan should be in place before construction activities begin. Lake Springs Ranch Historical & Archaeological Survey Reid Architects, inc. • 12/14/23 Attachments A. Cultural Resource Survey Form with Site Photos and Sketch Maps B. Metcalf Archeological Report C. USGS Location Map D. 1976 Archaeological Survey Forms Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: Pending 2. Temporary resource number: LSR.001 3. County: Garfield 4. City: rural site 5. Historic building name: none 6. Current building name: Quigley Ranch Cabin 7. Building address: 3961 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 8. Owner name and address: Berkeley Family Limited Partnership 1302 Waugh Drive #684 Houston, TX 77019 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 6S Range 88W NE ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ of SE ¼ of section 33 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 0 8 5 8 7 mE 4 3 7 2 9 0 6 mN 11. USGS quad name: Carbondale Year: 2022 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): n/a Block: Addition: n/a Year of Addition: n/a 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The resources are located on an agricultural parcel comprising 242.399 acres described as Section: 33 Township: 6 Range: 88 that parcel of land identified as the "remainder parcel ", as per vacation plat reception no. 950673. except that 182.67 ac. +/- parcel of land as described per warranty deed reception no.955848. The parcel ID is 2187 333 00 153. A subdivision development is proposed for this tract. The cabin and barn will be located on a dedicated open space area that includes the pond and spring. The final legal description has not been created at this time. Attachment A Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 16’ x Width 14’ 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Log 18. Roof configuration: Side Gable 19. Primary external roof material: Metal 20. Special features: none 21. General architectural description: The one-story rectangular cabin sits on a gently sloped site with the ridge line running generally east/west. The cabin is constructed of roughly hewn logs with notched, overlapping corners. The log construction runs to the eave of the gable roof. Horizontal wood plank siding infills from the top of logs to the peak on the gable ends. The south side has a single door opening near the west corner. The west side has a larger opening offset to the north. A single horizontally proportioned window opening is centered on the west wall, there are no openings on the north. The three openings are framed with milled lumber bucks; there are no door or window units remaining. The roof is framed with widely spaced milled lumber, supporting wood plank sheathing. Rusted corrugated sheets complete the roof assembly. A narrow fascia board trims out the plank sheathing along the roof edge which has a small overhang along the perimeter. The fascia is missing in some areas. The log corners have two different log treatments. The west side of the cabin has logs that are cut in a rough triangular shape, the top point set into a triangular notch in the log above. The log tails run well past the wall plane to west, north and south. The logs show tool marks and are slightly pointed at the tail ends. On the east side where the logs are smaller in diameter, they are more often round in profile with a broader notching detail. The biggest difference is that the logs are vertically cut and do not extend much beyond the wall plane. The west side logs are stacked fairly tightly where there are large gaps between logs on the east. The logs have wood chinking which remains in most areas except the east facing wall. The interior is a single space with a dirt floor with no apparent foundation. There is evidence of some stabilization efforts in the corners and at the roof. 22. Architectural style/building type: Pioneer Log 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The cabin sits on the edge of an open meadow adjacent to a historical spring and a manmade pond. The meadow slopes gently to the pond location from the north and west. To the east and south, the topography changes to rolling hills with a mix of low growing conifers, scrub oak and sage brush, creating a basin. The pond was created by the current ranch owners and is fed by the historical spring that is located several feet to the east and south of the Attachment A Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 cabin site. The meadow consists of tall grasses and other low growing indigenous plants. A grove of oak trees is located to the north and east of the cabin. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A 12’ x 27’ pole barn is located beyond the grove of trees in another clearing located north and east of the cabin. The pole barn is a one-story shed roofed building with the long axis running east/west. The structure is log posts with vertical wood planks on the east, north and west run from the ground to the eave. Several planks are missing on these walls. The south side is completely open with four log posts supporting the roof. Some pressed sheet metal panels are tacked on the west side wood planking in a random pattern. The roof is covered with corrugated sheet metal panels of varying size and pitch placed on widely spaced purlins. On the east end the roofing is missing completely. The floor of the barn is dirt with no apparent foundations. A second contemporary two-story house and garage is located on the south side of the pond, accessed separately from the log cabin. The house has a front gable roof, and the principal façade faces north. The adjacent two-car garage is one story with a hipped roof. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1910 Actual: Source of information: Based on property records and building type 26. Architect: Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Christopher Quigley Family Source of information: Based on property records 28. Original owner: Christopher Quigley Family Source of information: Based on property records 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Agriculture 32. Intermediate use(s): Vacant 33. Current use(s): Vacant 34. Site type(s): Rural 35. Historical background: Christopher Quigley (1883 – 1961) arrived in the United States from Ireland in 1909. He may have arrived shortly after in the Roaring Fork Valley, but he does not appear in the Federal Census until 1920. The 1920 and 1930 Federal Census shows the Christopher Quigley family south of Glenwood Springs, farming and living in a rental property. Christopher and Mary Ann Quigley Attachment A Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 (1873-1961) were both born in Ireland and had three sons born in Colorado; James V. (b. 1911), John J. (b. 1913) and Daniel P. (b. 1916). The family doesn’t appear anywhere other than Garfield County, in the 1920, 1930 and 1940 Federal Census, which leads to the conclusion that the family was already living and working the ranch that was known as the Quigley Ranch. In support of that conclusion, there are several transactions recorded in 1913 and 1914 related to cattle and horses being bought and sold and offered as collateral. Land maps from the 30s show two parcels of land, one under John J. Quigley and one under James V. Quigley. In 1940 a patent was recorded with the federal government for 640 acres of land under James V. Quigley and in 1949 an additional 609.83 acre parcel was patented under John J. It’s possible to imagine that the original Quigley Ranch was divided up for two of the sons when the patent was finally filed. No other activity is recorded on that property, until the 1970s when both James and his brother Daniel are listed as owners of the property. Dan P. Quigley married Ellen Margaret in 1945. Ellen was also born of Irish immigrant parents and the couple settled on the Ranch and raised three daughters. In 1968 they gifted a portion of the ranch to create the new Colorado Mountain College campus along with several of their ranching neighbors. In 1989, the property was sold to the Berkeley Family Trust. In 2023 the property is proposed to be redeveloped as the Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision. 36. Sources of information: Garfield County Records, Heritage Quest Online, Ellen Margaret Quigley Obituary, Post independent, 2010; 1920, 1930 & 1940 Federal Census records VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: X A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria. 39. Area(s) of significance: Criterion A; Agriculture Criterion C; Architecture 40. Period of significance: Agriculture 1910 – 1973; Architecture 1910 41. Level of significance: National State Local X Attachment A Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 42. Statement of significance: Criterion A; Agriculture. The property is significant as an example of the development and operation of family farming in the Roaring Fork Valley. At the turn of the 20th century many European immigrants arrived in the valley establish themselves as farmers and ranchers. The immigrants came from Ireland, England and Italy and created small communities in the valley. Farmers and ranchers often kept cattle and horses, grew potatoes and hay as crops, and kept gardens, chickens and other small animals to support the needs of the family. Farmers were able to send their cattle to graze on National Forest lands during the summer months, and focus on cash crops for the market, leading to a level of self-sufficiency that defined most farms/ranches in the region. That self-sufficiency was also balanced by cooperation with other nearby families and relatives. Families often traded supplies like milk and cheese, fruit from family orchards, and spirits. This building was probably not used as a residence but may have been a periodic shelter for people and animals during grazing periods as cattle were moved around the ranch. Its proximity to the spring implies that it may have been used as a winter grazing area, though there is no evidence of any heat source in the cabin. The main Quigley ranch complex is located across County Road 114, approximately 900 feet to the west. The pole barn is a typical form in this area and was used for hay storage and as an animal shelter. The proximity of the pole barn to the cabin may reinforce the idea that this was a prime wintering area for the family’s cattle. Criterion C; Architecture. The Quigley cabin and the pole barn are both characteristic of typical ranch buildings constructed from local materials, erected quickly for support of the farming/ranching operations. The log cabin is characteristic of the type of log building that was built in advance of more complex types of construction on local ranches. The log construction is somewhat rough and shows tool marks indicating that the materials were hand hewn. The pole barn uses pealed logs and wood planks that were milled. Its simple construction is also typical and indicates that hay storage was its primary use, since its only purpose is for minimal shelter. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The cabin is generally intact retaining its form, construction techniques and materials. There are some possible more modern interventions such as milled rafters and poles for stabilization. The openings may have also been modified over time. In terms of location, setting, form, materials, workmanship, feeling and association the cabin retains considerable integrity. The building is in need of additional stabilization at the southwest corner where the door jamb has failed and left the short length of log wall unsupported vertically. This condition has led to the deterioration of that corner. The pole barn has suffered some loss of material but is otherwise intact in the seven aspects of integrity. The structure could benefit from some additional stabilization efforts. Attachment A Resource Number: Pending Temporary Resource Number: LSR.001 These are both structures that were constructed for functionality. It can be accepted that this type of working building may experience a series of repairs and alterations to preserve its functionality over time. The buildings have not changed in essentials and the likely uses remain the same limiting what might have been more impactful changes in use. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: LSR.1 through LSR.9 Negatives filed at: Reid Architects, 412 N Mill St Aspen, CO 81611 48. Report title: Lake Springs Ranch Historic Resource & Archeological Report 2023 49. Date(s): Fall 2023 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid 51. Organization: Reid Architects, inc 52. Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 Attachment A photos • page 1 of 9 Quigley Cabin at le with the pond and contemporary house at right. September 2023 Quigley Cabin looking east, September 2023 e grove of trees can be seen beyond the cabin, the spring is located to the right in the photo Attachment A photos • page 2 of 9 west side of cabin south side of cabin Attachment A photos • page 3 of 9 east and partial north side of cabin detail at south side of cabin Area of log wall failure on south east corner. is area could be repaired and stabilized to improve longevity. Attachment A photos • page 4 of 9 detail at northeast corner detail at southeast corner e smallest logs can be seen at this corner, with large gaps and no remaining chinking. Some of the stabilization eorts can be seen at the corner, inside and out. e southeast corner has larger logs than the northeast, the rough cuts of the lapped corners can be seen. A few areas of wood chinking can be seen. Attachment A photos • page 5 of 9 detail at west side logs detail at west gable Horizontal planks inll the gable ends. e remnants of the fascia and sot is visible e large logs on the west can be seen in this photo with the extended log tails, unlike the east side detailing. Attachment A photos • page 6 of 9 detail at northwest corner of the interior detail at southwest corner of the interior e rough sawn raers and plank sheathing can be seen. e planks closing the gable ends are self supporting with no interior structure Some of the stabilization eorts can be seen at the corner. e wood chinking on the north and west wall is visible. e southwest corner deterioration is a result of the loss of the door buck. is photo also shows gussets at the ridge, which improves the roof framing performance. Attachment A photos • page 7 of 9 pole barn south side north and west sides of the pole barn Attachment A photos • page 8 of 9 pole barn north side view of the cabin with the contemporary house beyond the pond Attachment A photos • page 9 of 9 e spring located south of the Quigley Cabin and east of the visible ponds. Quigley ranch homestead Quigley cabin is located in this group of trees View of the Quigley Ranch from the hillside above the pond, looking west. The homestead is sepaately owned and not part of the scope of this report Attachment A 6960 69 9 0 6 9 8 0 697 0 Lot 13 Quigley Cabin Pole Barn Quigley Spring proposed path proposed road lot 13 property line lot 13 setback line propsed 5.5' setback from cabin Quigley Cabin Sketch Map man made pond Pond 12/14/23scale 1":50'l Attachment A 693 0 6 9 2 0 69 4 0 6 9 5 0 6 9 6 0 6980 697 0 699 0 697 0 6980 69 9 0 6960 6960 69 9 0 6 9 8 0 697 0 70 0 0 Historic Quigley Ranch Quigley Cabin Pole Barn Quigley Spring County Road 114 proposed Lot 13 Quigley Ranch Area Sketch Map 12/14/23no scale l Attachment A LAKE SPRINGS RANCH PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN GLENWOOD SPRINGS: CLASS I CULTURAL RESOURCE FILES SEARCH AND SITE VISIT FOR REID ARCHITECTS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: Melissa Elkins Prepared for: Reid Architects, Inc. Suzannah Reid Under permit: State of Colorado Survey # 82438, exp. 2/29/2024 Metcalf Project No. 2023.CO.020 Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Eagle, Colorado Principal Investigator: Melissa Elkins December 2023 Attachment B Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release INTRODUCTION Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Metcalf) was contracted by Suzannah Reid of Reid Architects, Inc. to provide cultural resource services to their client (TG Malloy Consulting, LLC) for a proposed housing development on the privately owned Lake Springs Ranch in Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado. Lake Springs ranch is situated outside of Glenwood Springs along the Spring Valley bottom and County Road 114, rising east upward to a ridge with views of Mount Sopris within a sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation community (Figure 1). The project’s area of potential affect (APE), or the area where development is planned for the housing project, is located specifically in Sections 33 and 34 of Township 6 South, Range 88 West; and Section 4 of Township 7 South, Range 88 West, on privately owned lands (Figures 2-3). The proposed housing development will be permitted by Garfield County. There is no lead federal or state of Colorado agency providing oversight for the project due to private land ownership and no involved federal or state funding. Therefore, the project does not qualify as an undertaking and does not require formal compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The investigations reported here were requested by Reid Architects and their client in accordance with the Garfield County historic code which states that the following items will be completed for Areas of Paleontological, Historical or Archaeological Importance: 1. Map and/or description of all sites of historical or archaeological interest. 2. State historical site survey and/ or inventory form(s) completed by a qualified professional acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Officer for all paleontological, historical, or archaeological resources affected by the project. 3. Proof of compliance with the procedures for notification to the State Historical Society, State Archaeologist, and to applicable local historical societies/ organizations upon discovery of historical or archaeological resources during the construction or implementation of the Project. 4. Description of the impacts and Net Effect of the project on sites of paleontological, historical, or archaeological interest. In sum, the Garfield County historic code is in place to ensure that a project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historical, or archaeological importance. Reid Architects, Inc. is assessing the historic Quigley Ranch buildings on this property. As part of an earlier assessment in 2009, they conducted a preliminary files search with Colorado’s Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) which indicated that there are two previously recorded prehistoric open camp sites on the ranch property within the proposed housing development – 5GF4 and 5GF5. Because of the presence of known cultural resources as a matter of due diligence, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. was consulted about the project for areas of archaeological importance. Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Metcalf recommended to Reid Architects and their client that the entirety of the proposed housing development be inventoried for cultural resources to Class III standards. This recommendation was made based on their professional judgment of the archaeology and history of the area that included a review of previous work conducted there and an analysis of the area’s topography. These sources of information indicate that an intensive level survey to identify cultural resources has never been completed on the property in the past, and that the area appears to have good potential for prehistoric and historic resources due to its location near water with a prominent viewshed of the surrounding mountains and valleys. However, the proponent decided to have Metcalf only conduct a limited site visit to attempt to relocate the two previously recorded prehistoric sites, document them if found, and make recommendations for further work. Metcalf did not conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory for this project. Site visits were conducted on October 24 and November 7, 2023, by Metcalf Principal Investigator Melissa Elkins, in which she attempted to relocate sites 5GF4 and 5GF5. Morgan Guttman prepared field and report maps and created GIS data shapefiles for the project. Metcalf conducted all work under the terms of the company’s State of Colorado survey/testing permit # 82438, which expires 2/29/2024. All field documentation, maps, and photographs for this project are on file at Metcalf’s office in Eagle, Colorado. A copy of this report will be shared with OAHP as a matter of due diligence to keep their records up to date; however, OAHP will not provide any formal consultation on the project. Figure 1. View west of valley bottom, ranch pond, and County Road 114 from the ridge top on the Lake Springs Ranch property. The photo is viewed toward the blocks where prehistoric sites 5EA4 and 5EA5 should be located (see Appendix A map). Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 2. Project area location on USGS topographic map background. Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 3. Project area location on aerial background. Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release PREVIOUS WORK Prior to fieldwork, Metcalf reviewed records on-line using the OAHP Compass interface of previous inventories and previously recorded sites on-file in OAHP’s GIS database; and we also obtained GIS shapefiles and tabular data of the locations of previous inventory and recorded sites. These two datasets were cross-referenced to ensure all records information would be included in this study. The OAHP files indicate that 11 previous inventories have occurred within one mile of the project APE between 1982 and 2021. None of the previous inventories overlap with the proposed project area (Error! Reference source not found., Figure 4). Six of the nearby inventories were performed for transmission lines in the area. The remaining five were for private land, a bike trail, commercial fuelwood, land tenure, and a cell tower in the area. Several sites and inventories listed in the OAHP files search did not have associated files that had been loaded onto Compass; therefore, there was limited information. None of the previous inventories were conducted within the current Lake Springs Ranch housing development APE. Table 1. Previous Inventories within one mile of the project area. OAHP Project # Date Conducted Project Name Company MC.LM.R131 09/08/1997 Public Service Company Of Colorado Hopkins-Basalt 115 Kv Transmission Line - Nineteen Proposed Addition Or Replacement Structure Locations, Garfield & Eagle Counties, Colorado: A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory (S#1498-1) Powers Elevation Co., Inc. For BLM, Glenwood Springs Resource Area GF.LM.NR554 06/15/1992 Crystal Fisher #1 Commercial Fuelwood Sale (S#1211) Bureau Of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area GF.LM.R229 05/10/1982 Cultural Resource Survey Hopkins/Carbondale Line (Crc 82/04) (S#857) Cultural Resource Consultants For Public Service Company Colorado And The Bureau Of Land Management GF.LM.R13 02/10/1988 A Cultural Resource Survey Of Land Tenure Adjustment Number 71, In Garfield County, Colorado (S#996) Bureau Of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release OAHP Project # Date Conducted Project Name Company GF.LM.R108 12/05/1997 Cultural Resource Management Report, Public Service Company Of Colorado Ten Miles Of Proposed 115 Kv Transmission Line Corridor From The Roaring Fork Substation To The Hopkins Substation, Garfield County, Colorado, A Class III 100 Percent Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey (S#1498-2) Powers Elevation Co., Inc. For Public Service Company Of Colorado And The Bureau Of Land Management MC.E.R107 08/2012 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Of The Public Service Company Of Colorado Transmission Line 5207 Hopkins To Hagerman Project, Garfield, Eagle, And Pitkin Counties, Colorado HDR Environmental, Operations And Construction, Inc. GF.SC.NR77 2/5/2015 Garfield County Limited-Results Cultural Resource Survey Report On Private Lands USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) For The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) GF.LM.NR148 06/02/1983 Cultural Resource Survey, Hopkins Carbondale Line Cultural Resource Consultants, For Public Service Company Of Colorado GF.HE.NR1 09/21/2011 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory For The Proposed Spring Valley Compressor Station In Garfield County, Colorado For Sourcegas (As Represented By Hrl Compliance Solutions, Inc.) (Gri No. 2011-29) Grand River Institute For Colorado Mountain College GF.LM.R675 1/11/2021 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory For The Sutey Ranch Mountain Bike Trail In Garfield County, Colorado (Crvfo Crir#: 1020- 33) BLM - CRVFO GF.FC.NR10 8/11/2015 Class III Inventory Of The Proposed Colorado Mountain College Cell Tower Site, Garfield County, Colorado Paleowest Archaeology For Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. And The Federal Communications Commission Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Figure 4. Location of project area on USGS topographic background showing previous cultural resource inventories in the OAHP Compass database. Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release The file search shows 14 previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project area (Error! Reference source not found., see Appendix A for site locations). These resources include six historic sites, four prehistoric sites, and three isolated finds. Prehistoric sites consist of a lithic scatter and a stone circle, as well as two open camps with hearth features. The historic sites include segments of transmission lines and one segment of a ditch. All of the isolated finds are prehistoric. All of the linear sites and the open lithic scatter have been recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), while the stone circle and one of the open camp sites (5GF4) are field recommended as “needs data” to evaluate their NRHP eligibility. The other open camp site (5GF5) was not given an assessment in the records. Table 2. Previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project APE. Resource No. NRHP Status General Age Site Type/Name In APE? 5GF4 Needs Data Prehistoric Open Camp, 4 hearths Yes 5GF5 No Assessment Given Prehistoric Open Camp, 2 hearths Yes 5GF.2456.1 Supports Eligibility Of Entire Linear Resource Historical Archaeology Historic Hopkins-Basalt Section 15Kv Transmission Line No 5GF.472 Field – Needs Data Archaeological Stone Circle No 5GF.2462 Officially Not Eligible Archaeological Isolated Find No 5GF.1417 Officially Eligible Archaeological Open Lithic No 5GF.2478.1 Officially Not Eligible Historical Archaeology Historic Vancleve/Fisher Ditch Segment No 5GF.2456.5 106 - Officially Eligible Historical Archaeology Historic Shoshone To Hopkins Transmission Line Segment No 5GF.1455 Officially Not Eligible Archaeological Isolated Find No 5GF.1456 Officially Not Eligible Archaeological Isolated Find No 5GF.2456.6 106 - Officially Eligible Historical Archaeology Historic Shoshone-Hopkins 115Kv Transmission Line No 5GF.2456.7 106 - Officially Eligible Historical Archaeology Historic Shoshone-Hopkins 115Kv Transmission Line No 5GF.4773 Officially Not Eligible Historical Archaeology Historic Hopkins To Hagerman Transmission Line No 5GF.5558 Officially Eligible Unknown No information in Compass No Two of the total previously recorded sites are plotted within the current project APE, sites 5GF4 and 5GF5. These two sites were recorded in 1975 by John D. Gooding as part of his Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Master of Arts thesis at Colorado State University entitled “Archaeological Surveys of the Roaring Fork Basin, West Central Colorado” (Gooding 1975). This document gives few details about the type of survey that was done, and there is no systematic mapping of what areas it covered; but over four years between 1971 and 1974 surveys took place across the 55-mile-long basin and resulted in the recordation of 49 sites. The maps included with this document are at a small scale (1:250,000) and present only points for site locations that are difficult to transfer to modern larger-scale maps or into GIS. The two recorded sites in the current project APE (5GF 4 and 5GF 5) consist of prehistoric open camps with hearth features and artifacts. It is important to note that since these sites were documented so long ago, and prior to GIS and GPS technology, they do not have an accurate map plot. The associated site forms in the OAHP database do not include site sketch maps or detailed map locations. Furthermore, both site descriptions note some vandalism, artifact collecting, and disturbance from ranch activities. Therefore, it is possible that there is no longer any surface evidence of these sites. The site descriptions are reprinted below from Gooding (1975). 5GF4 Located in the SW/SE of Section 33, T6S, R88W, elevation 6960 feet. The site is located 150 meters east of the entrance of the Quigley Brothers Ranch. The site is situated at the edge of a scrub oak grove at the edge of what is now Quigley Spring which flows year-round. The site which was composed of four slab-lined hearths has been destroyed and inundated by a small reservoir constructed by the ranch. This site is one of the many that are located along the edge of a park known as Spring Valley. The entire floor of the park has been under cultivation for approximately 40 years. The original vegetation of the valley floor was sagebrush with short grasses in the areas of springs and higher water table. The presence of grinding implements would suggest utilization of the nuts from the scrub oak as well as the nearby stands of pinon which is abundant around the park. The slope above the reservoir indicates that the site was exposed to the west. According to informants, the site was approximately 20 x 25 meters in size. 5GF5 Located in the NW/NE of Section 4, T7S, R88W, elevation 7040 feet. The site is located 375 meters due south of 5GF4 and 250 meters east of the Spring Valley Road. The site is situated on an aspen bench that overlooks Spring Valley and has extreme western exposure. The site is composed of two hearths which have been totally vandalized, no grinding implements were recorded but flakes and artifact fragments have been collected from this site and are currently in the Quigley collection. The site apparently covered an area of 10 x 10 meters. The last step of the files search for this project included the review of historic GLO plats and USGS quadrangle maps show several historic resources likely within the project area, none Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release of which have been previously documented. On the 1885 GLO Original Survey for T6S R88W, there is a road that runs through Sections 32, 33, and 34 and may overlap the current project APE. Garfield County Road 114 is depicted on the 1957 USGS Leadville Quadrangle Map (1:250,000), which is the earliest USGS map made for this area. It also shows up more clearly on the 1961 Carbondale (1:24,000) map. A pond/wetlands area is also depicted on these maps, and likely corresponds with the manmade pond on the Lake Springs Ranch. There are also three two-track roads, two trails, one transmission line, and two structures on the 1961 map that are either close or within the project area. The two structures likely correspond to the remaining historic buildings of the Quigley Ranch, assessed by Reid Architects. Historic map research serves as a guide for potential resources that may be documented in a project area during Class III inventory. Extant evidence of the historic features identified above would be verified on the ground during survey. Since Metcalf did not conduct a Class III pedestrian inventory, we cannot conclude whether these sites exist in their historic alignments (that date between 1885 and 1961); but from our site visits it does seem very likely that most or some of them do, and under current OAHP guidelines they would be required to be documented as cultural resources. SITE VISIT Melissa Elkins of Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. conducted site visits on October 24 and November 7, 2023, at Lake Springs Ranch. The goal of these visits was to relocate the previously recorded prehistoric sites 5GF4 and 5GF5. Because we do not have an accurate map plot or GIS location of these sites from their 1975 recording, we used two larger generalized blocks (see map in Appendix A) georeferenced to UTM zone 13 NAD 83 as a guide for where the resources may be located. Ms. Elkins used these mapped blocks as well as the overall project area boundary to navigate around the ranch and to systematically walk the areas where the two sites should be located. The plotted blocks were uploaded into ArcGIS and viewed on iPad-enabled software connected to a Trimble R1 GPS unit. In addition to covering the two mapped blocks, Ms. Elkins generally walked the rest of the project APE to gain a general sense of topography and potential for cultural resources. Conditions at the time of the site visit were conducive to site discovery with cool but sunny fall days and no notable impacts from weather, including no snow coverage on the ground. RESULTS No evidence of sites 5GF4 and 5GF5 was found at Lake Springs Ranch. The chances for site discovery were thought to be the low for the following reasons: the two sites were recorded so long ago (1975) prior to modern mapping techniques and GIS technology, the sites were already very small in size (20 x 25 meters for 5GF4 and 10 x 10 meters for 5GF5), and the original documentation noted that artifacts had been collected and the sites were previously Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release disturbed from ranch activities. Site 5GF4 is noted as having been composed of four slab-lined hearths that were destroyed and inundated by a “small reservoir constructed by the ranch” (Gooding 1975). In the case of 5GF5, the hearths are noted to be “totally vandalized”, and that the artifacts were collected and in the Quigley collection – assumed to be the original ranch owners. It is very possible that most of the surface evidence of these two sites was removed in 1975. That fact coupled with the additional erosional processes and ranch maintenance in the ensuing 48 years up to the present site visit makes it very unlikely that these sites could be found. Another significant limiting factor to the discovery of cultural resources is the thick vegetation present across most of the area, but most noticeable within the blocks where sites 5GF4 and 5GF5 were supposed to be located. This vegetation consisted of thick tall grasses, oakbrush, sagebrush, pinon trees, and other forbs; all of which obscured the ground and made visibility less than 30% in some areas. No other surface evidence of archaeological or historic sites were found at Lake Springs Ranch in the general visit conducted by Ms. Elkins (besides the existing historic architecture that has been assessed by Reid Architecture), but systematic Class III inventory of the whole project APE was not conducted. It is very likely that other archaeological and historic sites are located at Lake Springs Ranch that could be discovered with Class III pedestrian inventory. RECOMMENDATIONS At the request of Reid Architects, Inc. and their client, Metcalf conducted the Class I desktop review described in this report and a site visit to attempt to relocate previously recorded prehistoric sites 5GF4 and 5GF5. No surface evidence of these two sites, nor any other archaeological or historic sites were found. Metcalf continues to recommend that a full Class III cultural resource inventory is conducted of the entire project APE where the housing development is planned on Lake Springs Ranch. Without knowing what cultural resources are potentially located in the APE, we cannot definitively say that no archaeological or historic sites will be impacted by the planned development. We cannot carry out the recommendation in Garfield County code that states that it is in place “to ensure that a project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historical, or archaeological importance”. The current project APE does have very good potential for cultural resources. The most likely site types to be found include historic roads, irrigation ditches, and trash scatters associated with the historic occupation of the Lake Springs Ranch; along with prehistoric sites such as artifact scatters and hearth features for resource processing. Following the general guidelines of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Class III inventory would result in documentation of all surface evidence of cultural resources within the project APE and evaluation of the potential of those sites to be recommended eligible or not eligible to the Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The vast majority of documented sites are recommended not NRHP eligible and the project can proceed; but this process allows the resources to be documented and adds to the historic and prehistoric record of the larger area and specifically to the legacy of Lake Springs Ranch. The archaeologists can assist the proponent with moving planned construction away from any sites that are recommended NRHP eligible to avoid impacts to them. If Class III inventory is not possible prior to development, then Metcalf recommends that a qualified archaeologist be present to monitor any construction that occurs within the two blocks where known sites 5GF4 and 5GF5 were once located (see map in Appendix A) at a minimum. Ideally, construction monitoring in larger areas of the project APE would ensure documentation of widespread subsurface cultural material, for which there is good potential overall. The fact that these two sites once contained hearth features on the surface indicates some longer-term prehistoric use of the area and makes it likely that there is potential for buried cultural deposits particularly in these locations. These deposits would most likely consist of artifacts and features that could provide dates of prehistoric occupation. Construction monitoring would ensure that any subsurface evidence of these prehistoric sites is documented before it is destroyed. REFERENCES CITED Gooding, John D. 1975 Archaeological Surveys Of The Roaring Fork Basin, West Central Colorado, Multiple Counties, Master Thesis on file at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado (Document #MC.CSU.R6). Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release APPENDIX A Resource Location Maps – Topographic and Aerial Background (Agency copies only; not for public distribution) Attachment B For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Attachment B V, "' urce: I hston cal To pogr plu c M vey. Es ri ";J,. >-'1=,==~==9~;,._ Reid Architects Lake Sp rin gs Ranch Garlicld Coun ty. CO 7.5' Quad. Ind ex Shos hone 1961 PR 1987 ndal 196 1 PR 1987 R .88\V I :24,000 0.25 0.5 mi 0 .25 0.5 km NAD 19 83 UTM Zo ne 13N Prev iously Known Siles -Approx im alc Location 0 Needs Data l2J Areas Recommend ed For Constru cti on Mon it oring c:::I Pl anned Deve lopment Ar ea Surface Management Agency Burea u of L md Manage ment For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Privileged Information—Do Not Release Attachment B Reid Architect s Lake pring Ranch Garfield County. CO 7.5' Quad . Index 0 0 I :2 4.000 0.25 0.5km D 1983 TM Zone 13 0.5 1111 Previously Known Sites -A1>pro:rnnatc Loca11on C Keed Da1a (ZJ Area Recommended ror Co1b lntc 11on M nllonng C Pl anncd Devel pmen t Atea urfocc ~lanagcmcm Agency Bureau of Land ~lanagemc111 Quigley Cabin & pole barn to Carbondale to Glenwood Springs Attachment C Attachment D ,,. . ~COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY -Preservation Office, 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 INVENTORY RECORD IMPORTANT : COMPLETE THIS SHEET FOR EACH RESOURCE PLUS EITHER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT FORM. NOT FOR FIELD USE DET. ELIG . DET. NOT ELIG. NOMINATED LISTED, DATE I. IDENTIFICATION: l)_Resource No. 5GF'-/ 2)Temp. No. ----------- 3).Resource Name ~ 4)Project Name ______________ _ 5)Category: Arch. Sit J(, Hist ./Archit. Structure_, Hist./Archit. District 6)(For Arch. site)In a District :yes_no_;Name ____________________ _ II-. LOCATION: 7)Township ~ 5 ;Range fff'W ;____, __ ½; of ___ ¾; of 5 £N ¼. of S-€ ½; of Section g 3 P.M._' _______ 8)County __ -""~:...r.tl=·.:....y;..,_k....:../....:::ei'-'-/4..::;.~-==---------- 9)USGS QUAD __ Ga=-c-=Y._....../2~an-d""'-"''aL""""""J--,=-----; 7. 5 ½s_;Date /ftf / Attach photocopy portion of Quad. Clearly show site. lO)Other maps __________________ _ ll)Dimensions ______ mX ______ m 12)Area. _______ sq .m(+4047=) ______ acres 13)UTM Reference: (One UTM centered on resource may be given for resource under 10 acres.) A. I )1'~ I lmE ;,__j ...__.___,__-'---L_,___,jmN. B • L...i_j ;.._I ..L.-.1.--'----'----'---'!mE ; ~I ...__..___.__~ ............ lmN. C.Li_j;j l , I lmE;j lmN. D.Li_l;I !mE;I jmN. l!f )Address ______________________ Lot Block Addition ____ _ III. MANAGEMENT DATA: i5)Field Assessment : Eligible __ Not Eligible __ Need Data_d 16)0wner/Address _________________________________ _ 17)Gov't Involvement: County_St!'lte_Federal_Private_: Agency ____________ _ 18)Disturbance:none_light_moderate_heavy_total_;Explain _____________ _ 19)Threats to Resource:Water Erosion_Wind Erosion Animal Activity_Neglect_Vandalism_ Recreation Construction_;Cornments _________________________ _ 20)Management Recommendations ____________________________ _ V. REFERENCE: 21)State/Fed. Permit Nos. ------------------------ 22) Photo Nos . _______________ _,a.tf -fHe at _______________ _ 23)Report Title ~ -4-v~ .P/HCJ ~~ ~ ~; /tlwth~&-t 24)Recorder ✓~/2 n D. 6-ood r't::z,~~S)Recording Date /Y 7,5 26)Recorder Affiliation __________________ 27)Phone No. _______ _ Form No . 619 Attachment DResouice No. ----~--------Page 2 V. SKETCH MAP: Map all features and show the boundaries of the resources. Show all major topographic featur~s, permanent modern features, and vegetation zones as appropriate. Give names of features, streets and addresses if known. Provide scale, key and direction . . . . .· . . . . ' . . . scale: . . . . I ' I . . . . 'key: .•. . - . .. .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' •. . ' ' • . . . . .· . . . . . . . . . . . .. N . • . . .• . . .• . . true ·. ' . I • . mag._·_ . ' . ' . . . . . Z8)Location/Access: 29)Boundary Description: 30)Boundary Justification: Attachment D .L 0 E 0 E s 5GF4: SW~, SE~, Sec. 33, T 6S, R 88W, elevation 6960 ft. The site is located 150 meters east of the entrance to the Quigley Brothers Ranch. The site is situated at the edge of a scrub oak grove at the edge of what is now Quigley Spring which flows year-round. The site which was composed of four slab-lined hearths has been destroyed and inundated by a small res~voir constructed by the ranch. This site is one of the many that are located along the edge of a park known as Spring Valley. The entire floor of the park has been under cultivation for approximately 40 years. The original vegetation of the valley floor was sage brush, with short grasses in the areas of springs and high water table. The presence of grinding implements would suggest utilization of the nuts from the scrub oak as well as the nearby stands of pinon which is abundant around the park. The slope above the reservoir indicates that the site was exposed to the west. According to informants, the site was approximately 20 X 25 meters in size. Sa~l type,IV. Habitat,!!. Exposure,southwest Attachment D 0 5 10km HHHHFll 0 5mi E-3 F3 E3 Scale I: 250,000 ~ ,--._ ~m.0 : .5f R85W. R83W Figure 6. Site <:;atchment Areas Surveyed-in the Roaring Fork E Attachment D ,., COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY-Preservation Office, 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 INV ENTORY RECORD f\~/\Ff ED NOT FOR FIELD USE IMPORTANT : COMPLETE THIS SHEET FOR EACH RESOURCE PLUS EITHER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT FORM. DET . ELIG. DET . NO T ELIG . NOMINATED LISTED, DATE ~~~ ~-# 7 I. IDENTIFICATION: l)_Resource No. __ 5'..,___.h-""";,-:_,F'--"""5'""--___ 2)Temp. No. __________ _ 3)_Resource Name · ~ 4)Project Name ______________ _ 5)Category: Arch. Site.12S, Hist ./Archit _: Structure_, Hist ./Archit. District 6)(For Arch . site)In a District :yes_no_;Name ___________________ _ II. LOCATION : 7)Township 7 S ;Range ff(W;.___,'---,._¾ of ___ !t; of Nftl!t; of (1/~ of Section L/ P.M._-________ _ 8)County __ ._G=-.,o""'-.-'-rh-'---'-/-=e.=/2=cf...c..::::...... _______ _ 9)USGS QUAD _ __.C-"""a=c~b.at])f-<...U....1.<:d =~=..::;c-==-----; 7. sX lS_;Date /7~/ Attach photoccpy portion of Quad. Clearly show site. lO)Other maps __________________ _ ll)Dimensions mX m 13)UTM Reference : (One UTM centered on A. L2f;f}1,y JmE;j jmN. C. L.i_J;j I lmE ;I jmN. !!!-)Address 12)Area _______ sq .m(+4047=) ______ acres resource given for resource under 10 acres.) _,_~-1---.,__,..__,jmE; L-l -L--'---'--''--'----'--'lmN • may be B.~;j D.L_j;I ......_......___,__,__.___.lmE; I I jmN.' Lot -----------------------Block Addition ____ _ III. MANAGEMENT DATA: lS)Field As s e ssment : Eligible __ Not Eligible __ Need Data X 16)0wner/Address ___________________________________ _ 17)Gov't Involvement : County_St_ate_Federal_Priva·te_: Agency ____________ _ 18)Disturbance:none_light_moderate_heavy_total_;Explain ____________ ~_ 19)Threats to Resource:Water Erosion_Wind Erosion Animal Activity_Neglect_Vandalism_ Recreation Construction_;Comments _________________________ _ 20)Management Recommendations ____________________________ _ V. REFERENCE: 21)State/Fed. Permit Nos. ------------------------ 22)Photo Nos. _______________ _, o.o · -fi-le at _______________ _ 23)Report Title U(v:.__f-__ ~. ~~ 5zu>~,-{Md'? ~) 7?/ed-~{{~. 24)Re corder Jolin ~ 25)Recording Date --------- 26)Recorder Affiliation 27)Phone No. -------------------------- Form No. 6 19 Attachment DResource No.______________ Page 2 V. SKETCH MAP: Map all features and show the boundaries of t.he resources. Show all majo~ topographic featur~s, permanent modern features, and vegetation zones as appropriate. Give names of features, streets and addresses if known. Provide scale, key and direction. scale: ·key: N true mag. Z8)Location/Access: 29)Boundary Description: 30)Boundary Justification: Attachment D 0 5 10km Fl H Fl H H I 0 5mi F-3 E--3 F-3 f Scale I, 250,000 L.. ------· 71 ' i ' I i COLORADO I ) ~ i i i_ _____ -_j ______ . _____ j R. 85W. R. 83W Figure 6. Site Catchment Areas Surveyed-in the Roaring Fork E Attachment DSGFS: NW\, NE\, Sec. 4, T 7S, R SSW, elevation 7040 ft. The site is located 375 meters due south of GF4 and 250 meters 37 east of the Spring Valley road. The site is situated on an aspen bench that overlooks Spring Valley and has extreme western exposure. The site is composed of two hearths which have been totally vandalized,-no grinding implements were recorded but flakes and artifact fragments have been collected from this site and are currently in the Quigley collection. The site apparently covered an area of 10 X 10 meters. Soil Type IV. Habitat v. Exposure, We.st. Attachment D . ' TABLE VII 1J2 ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES BY SITE en ~ 0,:: en en ""' en en 0,:: . r::, 0,:: p., ""' 0,:: ""' ""' ""' p., z r::, ""' p., ""' N p., 0 0 ..:I "" ""' p., < ..:I en r::, en H en p., p;: E-< ..:I 0 " z en < 0,:: H E-< ""'""' ..:I o,:i 0 c., en < <tl Q) en H E-< 0,:: c., E-< z p;: ~ H~ en p;: ~ en .... Ol p;: ..:I en c., en c., H en. en c., < E-< < ""' ""' c., r::, 0,:: ""' 'M " E-< IH en ""'0 z ..:I ;::,,.:i ;::, ..:I en E-< ..:I ""' ""' ""' c., "" <tl 0,:: ~(.) ""' ..., p., H ..:I 0~ ~ 0 < E-< ""' E-< ~ z < " .--< < < r::, r::, 0 0,:: H E-< z z E-< en 0,:: ~ 0 ~ < c., ""' ..:I z H 0,:: ;::, 0,:: ""' 0 < ""' ""' 0 < < E-< H SITES p;: en ""' en p., ~ r::, 0,:: z :,: :.: p., c., p;: p;: en ~ 5GF3 1 l· 1 2 13 6"\ 2 5GF4 4 5 3' 2 3 i2 4 3 5GF5 2 1 7 \ 2 5GF6 ? 35 1 2 6 1 5GF7 5 5GF8 2 5GF9 4 5GF10 5GF11 1 2 1 5GF12 1 5GF13 12 5GF14 1 1 2 5GF15 7 5GF16 1 1 14 2 5GF17 17 5GF18 3 1 11 3 5GF19 1 6 3 1 1 --5GF21 5 ,, 1 3 2 _; 5GF22 1 2 13 1 3 1 5GF23 1 8 3 1 5GF24 1 1 10 5GF25 15 5GF26 1 5 l 5GF27. l 8 2 5GF28 18 5EA29 l 1 2 5 5EA30 2 6 3 l l 5EA31 l 1 l 3 l 5EA32 1 2 2 10 2 2 5EA33 7 4 1 5EA34 2 3 4 1 8 2 l 3 5EA35 2 2 20 l l 16 2 1 3 5EA36 l l 5EA37 2 4 5EA38· 13 5EA39 1 1 9 5EA40 7 4 5EA41 6 l 5EA42 2 2 16 9 l 3 5EA43 5PT4 2 ,5 5 l 2 5PT5 4 l 3 l l ) 5PT6 1 6 2 5PT1 7 11 ._,. 5PT8 2 5PT9. 2 4 5PT10 2 5PT11 8 5PT12