Class I Cultural Resource Study - Garfield County, Colorado › WebLink › 0 › edoc › 739002 › 1.1… · Class I Cultural Resource Study . Encana High Mesa PN-30 Communication

Class I Cultural Resource Study

Encana High Mesa PN-30 Communication Tower

OA Project No. 011-2059

February 2012

826 21 ½ Road | Grand Junction, CO 81505 | 970.263.7800 | Fax 970.263.7456

REPORT ON THE CLASS I CULTURAL AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

FOR A SENSITIVE AREA STUDY FOR TWO

PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATIONS

IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO,FOR

ENCANA OIL AND GAS (USA) INC.

GRI Project No. 2011-995 October 2011

Prepared by

Carl E. Conner (Principal Investigator) and Barbara DavenportGrand River Institute

P.O. Box 3543Grand Junction, Colorado 81502

BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2011-71

Submitted to

Board of County CommissionersGarfield County, Colorado

CRS-1

Abstract

At the request of EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., Grand River Institute conducted aClass I cultural resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study in relation to an anticipatedSpecial Use Permit Application with Garfield County for two proposed communication towerlocations.

The Class I inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with county,state, and federal laws and regulations governing the identification and protection of culturalresources on BLM and privately owned lands that will be affected by a government action. Thiswork was performed under State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2011-71 and BLMAntiquities Permit No. C-52775. The purpose of the cultural resources investigation was toidentify previously recorded resources within or near the project area that may be adverselyaffected by the proposed action and to evaluate the potential of additional such resources in theproject area.

The Class I files search and report preparation were performed on the 3 and 4 ofrd th

October 2011. The proposed tower on High Mesa occurs on the south edge of a previouslyinventoried area on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That projectwas performed by archaeologists from the BLM-GSFO in 1998, and one site (5GF2612) waspreviously recorded in the vicinity of the proposed tower location. It is an open camp that wasfield evaluated as not eligible, and will not be directly affected by the proposed action. Theproposed Hunter Mesa tower is located on private land that was previously inventoried. Itsnearest previously recorded site is about 1.0 mile away. No paleontological localities have beenrecorded in or near either area. Accordingly, based on the Class I information, the proposedprojects will apparently have no adverse effects on cultural and paleontological resources.

ii

CRS-2

Table of Contents

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

Location of the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figures 1 and 2. Project location maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,3

Paleoclimate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Files Search Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Relevant Historical Background post-1880. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Summary and Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Appendix A: Files Search Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iii

CRS-3

CRS-4

Introduction

At the request of EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., Grand River Institute conducted aClass I cultural resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study in relation to an anticipatedSpecial Use Permit Application with Garfield County for two proposed communication towerlocations. The Class I inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with county,state, and federal laws and regulations governing the identification and protection of culturalresources on BLM and privately owned lands that will be affected by a government action. Thiswork was performed under State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2011-71 and BLMAntiquities Permit No. C-52775.

The Class I inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with state andfederal legislation governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privatelyowned lands that will be affected by a government action. It was done to meet requirements ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992), the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1701), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq., asamended), and Article 80.1, Colorado Revised Statutes. These laws are concerned with theidentification, evaluation, and protection of fragile, non-renewable evidence of human activity,occupation, and endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ruins, works ofart, architecture, and natural features that were of importance in human events. Such resourcestend to be localized and highly sensitive to disturbance. All work was performed according toguidelines set forth by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) of theColorado Historical Society.

Location of the Project Area

The communication sites study areas are located south of Parachute and Rifle, Colorado. The High Mesa locality is in T. 7 S., R. 95 W., Section 30; and, the Hunter Mesa locality is in T.7 S., R. 93 W., Section 1; 6 P.M. (Figures 1 and 2).th

Environment

The project area is within the Piceance Creek Basin, one of the major geologicsubdivisions of Colorado. The Piceance Creek Basin is an elongate structural downwarp of theColorado Plateau province that apparently began its subsidence approximately 70 million yearsago during the Laramide Orogeny. Sediments from surrounding highlands were deposited in thebasin, accumulating to a thickness of as much as 9000 feet by the lower Eocene epoch, whensubsidence ceased. Regional uplift occurred in the Late Tertiary, and erosion of the area hascontinued since (Young and Young 1977:43-46). The Wasatch formation underlies the HighMesa study area, and Quaternary gravels occur in the area of the Hunter Mesa location.

1

CRS-5

2

CRS-6

Parachute {1962) Quadrangle Map Garfield County - Colorado

U.S.G.S. 7.5' Series (topographic) Scale 1 :24000 f

Contour Interval40 Feet T. 7 S., R. 95 W., 6th P.M.

Figure 1. Project location map (1 of2) for the Report on the Class I Cultural and Paleontological Resource Inventory for a Sensitive Area Study for Two Proposed Communication Tower Locations in Garfield County, Colorado, for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. The project area is indicated. [GRI Project#2011-99, 10/512011]

3CRS-7

Hunter Mesa (I 963/1987) Quadrangle Map Garfield County - Colorado

U.S.G.S. 7.5' Series (topographic) Scale 1 :24000 i

Contour Interva140 Feet T. 7 S., R. 93 W., 6th P.M.

Figure 2. Project location map (2 of2) for the Report on the Class I Cultural and Paleontological Resource Inventory for a Sensitive Area Study for Two Proposed Communication Tower Locations in Garfield County, Colorado, for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. The project area is indicated. [ GRI Project #20 11-99, 10/5/2011]

The Eocene-age Wasatch (Debeque) Formation underlies the benches and mesas of thearea. Basalt boulders and cobbles are found throughout and were deposited as drift during thePinedale and Bull Lake Glaciations when ice tongues extended down the north side ofBattlement Mesa (Young and Young 1968:31-32).

The terrain of the project area on Hunter Mesa is comprised of a dendritic pattern ofwashes separated by narrow ridges and wide benches that slope generally north and east ofBattlement Mesa. The High Mesa locality is set on the south side of the mesa overlooking DryCreek. Elevation in the project area ranges from about 6020 to 6400 feet, which falls within theUpper Sonoran zone. These contain several vegetation communities including pinyon/juniperforest, and sagebrush/grasslands. Present day land use within the project boundaries includesagricultural fields and energy development.

Present land uses are open range and energy development. Wildlife inhabitants includingmule deer, elk, coyote, and black bear are common in the surrounding area, as are cottontailrabbits and various rodents. Mountain lion, bobcat, fox, skunk, badger, and weasel are alsolikely inhabitants. Bird species observed in the area include the jay, raven, red-shafted flicker,long-eared owl, golden and bald eagles and various other raptors.

There is little climate variation within the study area. The lower elevations are host to acool semiarid climate where temperatures can drop to -15 degrees F during the winters andsummer temperatures may reach 100 degrees F; there is a maximum of 120 frost-free days andthe annual precipitation is about 14 inches. The surrounding higher elevations are characterizedas cooler and moister. Annually, the high mountain temperatures could average 5 degrees coolerand the precipitation as much as 10 inches greater than the lower elevations (USDA SCS1975:244).

Paleoclimate

Relatively small changes in past climatic conditions altered the exploitative potential ofan area and put stress upon aboriginal cultures by requiring adjustments in their subsistencepatterns. Therefore, reconstruction of paleoenvironmental conditions is essential to theunderstanding of population movement and cultural change in prehistoric times (Euler et al.1979). To interpret whatever changes are seen in the archaeological record, an account offluctuations in past climatic conditions must be available or inferences must be made fromstudies done in surrounding area. Generally, only gross climatic trends have been established forwestern North America prior to 2000 BP (Antevs 1955; Berry and Berry 1986; Mehringer 1967;Madsen 1982; Wendlund and Bryson 1974; Peterson 1981). Scientific data derived frominvestigations of prehistoric cultures and geoclimatic and bioclimatic conditions on the southernColorado Plateau over the past two millennia have achieved a much greater degree of resolution(Dean et al. 1985).

4

CRS-8

Files Search Results

Files searches for known cultural and paleontological resources within the project areaswere made through the Colorado Historical Society’s Office of Archaeology and HistoricPreservation. Appendix A contains the results of the Class I for the surrounding sections.

Local and regional archaeological studies suggest nearly continuous human occupation ofwest-central Colorado for the past 12,000 years. A general temporal outline for the prehistory ofthe Northern Colorado River Basin includes manifestations of the Paleoindian Era, big-gamehunting peoples (ca. 11,500 - 6400 BC); the Archaic Era hunter/gatherer groups (ca. 6500 - 400BC); the Formative Era horticulturalist/forager cultures (ca. 400 BC- AD 1300); the ProtohistoricEra’s pre-horse hunter/gatherers (ca. AD 1300 - AD 1650) and historic horse-riding nomads (ca.AD 1650 - AD 1881). An overview of the prehistory of the region is provided in a documentpublished by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists entitled Colorado Prehistory:A Context for the Northern Colorado Plateau (Reed and Metcalf 1999). Historic records suggestoccupation or use by EuroAmerican trappers, settlers, miners, and ranchers as well. Overviewsof the historical record are found in the Colorado Historical Society’s Colorado Plateau CountryHistoric Context (Husband 1984), and in the Bureau of Land Management’s publication Frontierin Transition (O’Rourke 1980). Significantly, a relatively new historical context has beenpublished by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists entitled Colorado History: AContext for Historical Archaeology (Church et al. 2007).

The project area for the Hunter Mesa communication site is located on private land. Itwas previously inventoried as part of the “Class III cultural resource inventory report for theproposed Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline route (4.0 miles) and Hunter Mesa Compressorexpansion project in Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.” (Conner andDavenport 2010). No sites were found in the inventoried area for the compressor site, a portionof which will be used for the communications tower.

The project area for the High Mesa communication site is located on BLM land. It islocated within a partially previously inventoried area as reported in the “Cultural ResourceInventory for the High Mesa Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project Garfield County, Colorado”(Seacat 1998). One site (5GF2612) was previously recorded in the vicinity of the proposed towerlocation. It is an open camp that was feld evalauted as non-significant and not eligible for listingon the National Register of Historic Places. That site was revisited with the same resultingevaluation in 1999 as part of the “Site Evaluation of 5GF2612 for the Tom Brown Federal 30-42Well Pad and Access Road” (Grahm 1999).

Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources

Previous archaeological studies in the general vicinity have suggested regional occupationfor as long as 8000 years, although recently an inventory of block units east of this study area

5

CRS-9

within the Doghead GAP (Conner et al. 2006) provided direct evidence of the presence ofFoothill-Mountain Paleoindian occupation at 5GF1323, which pushes the regional prehistoricoccupation dates back to about 10,000 yr BP. Historic records also indicate a permanent Euro-American presence in the region began as early as the late 1880's. Notably, the prehistoric sitesin the river corridor have been impacted by the 130 year occupation and use of the area byEuroAmericans. Notably, many of the newly and previously recorded resources in the generalarea indicate it was intensively occupied during the Protohistoric Era. Unfortunately for many ofthe sites where wickiups were present, post-cutting and wood collection by the HistoricEuroAmerican settlers and ranchers over the past 125 years has nearly wiped out evidence oftheir presence. Also, surface collection of diagnostic artifacts has impacted the sites and affectedthe assignment of cultural/temporal associations.

In general, although the study area was probably not continuously occupiedprehistorically, it seems to have offered an attractive environment for gathering, floralprocessing, hunting, as well as lithic procurement and processing. Site density in the surroundingmesa areas is high, probably due to two factors: good access to permanent water, and strategictopographical positioning on the ridge tops and open benches. Such camp placement provided agood view of the surrounding lower elevations for purposes of hunting and protection. Theheavily vegetated canyon bottoms were accessed for reasons of acquiring water and for theprocurement of floral and faunal resources.

The apparent differences in the characteristics of the upland and lowland sites may be dueto factors other than cultural selection. The lowland sites are subjected to more artifact collectingthan the uplands, and the areas along the Colorado River have been subject to few culturalresource surveys. The upland area exhibits a very thick vegetation cover that may be limitingdiscovery of features and additional artifacts.

Lowland sites exhibit greater variability in site types. While the uplands are limited toisolated finds, open camps, and lithic scatters; the lowlands contain these site types and openarchitectural sites, sheltered sites, and a single tool stone procurement area. The lowland sitescontain higher frequencies of cultural features or evidence of features. These features includefire-cracked rock scatters, charcoal stains, hearths, stone structures, and wickiups. All of theprehistoric sites contain low numbers of artifacts, including very limited numbers of debitage,bifacial tools and expedient tools. This suggests conservation, curation, and reuse of flaked stonetools in an area where tool material sources are limited.

Lowland sites tend to be situated in the pinyon-juniper vegetation community in greaterfrequencies than is suggested by the relative proportion of the pinyon-juniper to other vegetationcommunities. The sites in the uplands are distributed proportionally to the size of the vegetationcommunities, with the mountain shrub and sagebrush communities exhibiting the highest sitedensity.

Too little is known of the age of the sites to make any definitive statements. The

6

CRS-10

distribution of site ages based on projectile points and ceramics is generally the same asportrayed in Reed and Metcalf (1999), but the lack of absolute dating precludes any conclusionsin this area. Lithic scatters exhibit a smaller site size than open camps in both the lowland andupland settings. Isolated finds are distributed across a wider range of slopes than lithic scatters oropen camps.

The differences in the type and distribution of historic sites are: Sites in the uplands arelimited to sheep and cattle raising activities and are primarily post-1889. Sites in the uplands aredistributed proportionally to the size of the vegetation communities, with the mountain shrub andsagebrush communities exhibiting the highest site density. Sites in the lowlands display a greaterdiversity in types and are found mainly in the pinyon-juniper and sagebrush zones. The historicsites in the lowlands are concentrated near transportation corridors and near permanent watersources, particularly the habitation sites. Sites indicative of particular economic activities arespread across the landscape.

During 1980, the BLM 's Glenwood Springs Resource Area was subject to anarchaeological survey that randomly sampled three percent of its managed lands. A total of17,400 acres was surveyed for cultural resources. As a result, 58 prehistoric sites and 2 historicsites were recorded, an average of about 2 sites per section (.0034/acre). Three types ofprehistoric sites were distinguished by the study; limited activity areas, short-term camps, andlarge habitation sites. These were classified on the basis of site size and the diversity ofartifacts/activities represented. Notably, the sites were unevenly distributed and varied byvegetation community. The highest site density, about 5.0 sites/section (.0078/acre), occurred inpinyon/juniper and sagebrush communities. Concurrently, the greatest number of sites locatedduring the survey tended to occur in or near the pinyon/juniper community. Other environmentalfactors found to be important during the statistical analysis of the settlement patterns included 1)vertical distance between the site and the primary water source is a greater controlling factor thatthe horizontal distance, 2) sites tend to be near or on points of vantage, 3) sites tend to be locatedin forested areas, preferably with a southern exposure and, 4) sites tend to occur on flat ground(less than 40% grade) in areas of relatively low surface relief (Burgess et al. 1980:108-120, 138-139). In general, the region exhibits a relatively low site density and sites tend to cluster nearpermanent water sources.

Relevant Historical Background post-1880

The Ute people occupied large areas of Western Colorado until about 1881. Due to theWhite River Ute’s discontent that lead to the “Meeker Massacre,” as the incident became know, acongressional investigation lead to the Treaty of 1880 that stipulated the removal of the WhiteRiver bands to the Uintah Reservation in northeastern Utah. The Uncompahgre band was to begiven a small reservation in the vicinity of the confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers. Aware of the value of these agricultural lands, however, the commission charged with enforcingthe terms of the treaty, under the direction of Otto Mears, manipulated the location process using

7

CRS-11

a loophole in the treaty language, and the Uncompahgres were given lands in Utah near theUintah Reservation. The Southern Ute bands were left on the small reservation in southwesternColorado that had been given them by the Treaty of 1873. On 1 September 1881, the last of theUtes were moved to their new reservations in Utah, and western Colorado was completelyopened to the whites.

Interest in the potential agricultural lands of western Colorado (namely the Uncompahgre,Gunnison, Colorado, Dolores, San Miguel, White, and La Plata River valleys) had been growingfor some time prior to the Utes’ banishment, and by the spring of 1881 frontier towns closest tothe Ute lands were “crowded with people, anxious to enter the Reservation and take possessionof the most desirable locations (Haskell 1886:2).” Only days after the last of the Utes had beenexpelled, settlers began rushing onto the reservation lands. Settlement activity spread quickly--during the autumn months of 1881 land claims were staked, townsites were chosen, and railroadroutes were surveyed (Haskell 1886, Borland 1952, Rait 1932). However, because the formerreservation lands were not officially declared public lands until August 1882, the first year ofsettlement activity was marked by a degree of uncertainty regarding the legality of land claims.When finally announced, the 1882 declaration did not allow home-stead entries on the newlyopened lands, but only pre-emptions, or cash entries, at the rate of $1.25 per acre for agriculturalland, $5.00 per acre for mineral land (Borland 1952:75).

By 1895, the major portion of the land along Mamm Creek had been claimed, mostlyunder Cash Entry patents. The settlers raised their own food and availed themselves of theplentiful game in the area. Gardens, hay fields, and orchards were planted, and irrigationditches were dug to divert the creek's water to cultivated fields. Large herds of cattle and sheepwere accumulating, grazing the valley floor and the vast open range above, driven to theuplands via trails leading up the various gulches.

Because the area was still fairly remote, competition for lands had not yet begun. Travelin and out of the Rifle area was restricted to horse and/or wagon. There were several well-developed Ute trails, and in the early 1880s, the federal government had built the aforementionedroad between the White and Grand Valleys. In 1885 a toll road opened along the Grand Riverbetween Rifle and Grand Junction; prior to the building of this road through DeBeque Canyon,the route to Grand Junction had been a two-week journey "through the Cedar Hills, up KimballCreek...down the "Sawtooth Range to Fruita and then back to Grand Junction" (Murray 1973:5). But, despite this network of trails and roads, Parachute remained pretty much isolated.

With the coming of the D&RG railroad in 1890, however, new pressures were brought tothe area. More and more settlers arrived, competing not only for arable land but also for grazingprivileges on the unpatented public domain of the surrounding uplands. Increasing numbers ofcattle and sheep were imported, some being run as commission cattle for outside investors(ibid:84). Open warfare between cattle and sheep ranchers ensued, resulting in the slaughter ofthousands of animals. Four thousand sheep belonging to Messrs. Starkey and Charlie Brownwere killed by masked men who tried to drive the animals over cliffs at the head of a Clear Creek

8

CRS-12

tributary and above the Granlee Schoolhouse (LaPoint et al. 1981:3-51). Another 4000 sheepbelonging to J.B. Hurlburt were driven to their deaths above Ben Good Creek, a tributary of EastFork. The animosity between cattlemen and sheepmen continued into the 1900s. Finally,Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, bringing to an end to the free range byproviding for regulated grazing and an end to the Sheep-Cattle Wars.

Cash Entry, Desert Land, and Homestead patents continued to be granted into the 1920sand 30s. Ranching and farming were still the most important economic activities in theParachute area and remained so until the 1960s and 1970s when many of the farms and ranchesof the region were bought up by large companies interested in the large-scale extraction of oilshale and natural gas.

Summary and Recommendations

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) directs that federal agencies protect cultural resources that possess significant values. Significance is a quality of culturalresource properties that qualifies them for inclusion in the NRHP. The statements of significanceincluded in this report are field assessments that support management recommendations to theState Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The final determination of site significance is madeby the controlling agency in consultation with the SHPO.

The Code of Federal Regulations was used as a guide for site evaluations. Titles 36 CFR50, 36 CFR 800, and 36 CFR 64 are concerned with the concepts of significance and (possible)historic value of cultural resources. Titles 36 CFR 65 and 36 CFR 66 provide standards for theconduct of significant and scientific data recovery activities. Finally, Title 36 CFR 60.6 establishes the measure of significance that is critical to the determination of a site's NRHPeligibility, which is used to assess a site's research potential:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is presentin districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possessintegrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a)that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns ofhistory; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) thatembody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or thatrepresent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significantand distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that haveyielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history.

The eligibility determination and consultation process is guided by Section 106 of theNHPA (36 CFR 60, 63, and 800). Final determinations of National Register eligibility and effectare made by the controlling agencies in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

The Class I files search and report preparation were performed on the 3 and 4 ofrd th

9

CRS-13

October 2011. The proposed tower on High Mesa occurs on the south edge of a previouslyinventoried area on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That projectwas performed by archaeologists from the BLM-GSFO in 1998, and one site (5GF2612) waspreviously recorded in the vicinity of the proposed tower location. It is an open camp that wasfield evaluated as not eligible, and will not be directly affected by the proposed action. Theproposed Hunter Mesa tower is located on private land that was previously inventoried. Itsnearest previously recorded site is about 1.0 mile away. No paleontological localities have beenrecorded in or near either area. Accordingly, based on the Class I information, the proposedprojects will apparently have no adverse effects on cultural and paleontological resources.

References

Antevs, E.1955 Geologic-climate dating in the west. American Antiquity 20:317-355.

Berry, Claudia F. and Michael S. Berry1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In:

Anthropology of the Desert West, ed. by Carol J. Condie and Don D.Fowler, pp. 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110.

Salt Lake City.

Borland, Lois1952 Ho for the reservation; settlement of the Western Slope. Colorado Magazine

29(1):56-75.

Burgess, Robert J.; Kenneth L. Kvamme; Paul R. Nickens, Alan D. Reed; and Gordon C. Tucker1980 Class II cultural resource inventory report of the Glenwood Springs Resource

Area, Grand Junction District, Colorado. Ms on file, Bureau of LandManagement, Grand Junction.

Church, Minette C. and Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn,Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells

2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council ofProfessional Archaeologists, Denver.

Conner, Carl E., James C. Miller and Nicole Darnell2006 Class III (intensive) cultural resource inventory of three block acreages within the

South Parachute Geographic Area Plan (GAP) domain in Garfield County,Colorado, for Williams Production RMT. Ms on file, Bureau of LandManagement, Colorado River Valley Field Office Field Office.

10

CRS-14

Conner, Carl E. and Barbara Davenport 2010 Class III cultural resource inventory report for the proposed Hunter Mesa to

Pumba pipeline route (4.0 miles) and Hunter Mesa Compressor expansion projectin Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Ms on file,Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River Valley Field Office Field Office.

Dean, Jeffery S.; R. C. Euler; G. J. Gumerman; F. Plog; R. H. Hevly; and T. N.V. Karlstrom1985 Human behavior, demography and paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateau.

American Antiquity 50(3):537-554.

Euler, Robert C.; G. J. Gumerman; Thor N.V. Karlstrom; J, S. Dean; and Richard H. Hevly1979 The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural dynamics and paleoenvironment. Science

205(4411):1089-1101.

Grahm, Carol1999 Site Evaluation of 5GF2612 for the Tom Brown Federal 30-42 Well Pad and

Access Road. Ms on file, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River ValleyField Office Field Office.

Husband, Michael B.1984 Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society,

Denver.

Haskell, Charles W.1886 History and Description of Mesa County, Colorado. Edited and published by the

Mesa County Democrat, Grand Junction.

LaPoint, Halcyon, Brian Aivazian, and Sherry Smith1981 Cultural resources inventory baseline report for the Clear Creek Property, Garfield

County, Colorado, Volume I. Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins.

Madsen, David B.1982 Great Basin paleoenvironments: summary and integration. In:Mand and

Environment in the Great Basin, D.B. Madsen and J.F. O'Connell, editors. Society of American Archaeology Papers No. 2, pp.102-104. Washington, D.C.

Mehringer, Peter J.1967 Pollen analysis and the alluvial chronology. The Kiva 32:96-101.

Murray, Erlene D.1973 Lest We Forget–A Short History of Early Grand Valley, Colorado, Originally

called Parachute, Colorado. Quahada, Inc., Grand Junction.

11

CRS-15

O’Rourke, Paul M.1980 Frontier in Transition. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Series

Number Ten. Colorado State Office, Denver.

Peterson, Kenneth P.1981 10,000 years of change reconstructed from fossil pollen, La Plata Mountains,

southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Seattle.

Rait, Mary1932 History of the Grand Valley. M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado

Historical Society, Denver.

Seacat, Todd B.1998 Cultural Resource Inventory for the High Mesa Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Project Garfield County, Colorado. Ms on file, Bureau of Land Management,Colorado River Valley Field Office Field Office.

USDA Soil Conservation Service1978 Technical Guide IIE: Range Site Descriptions.

Wendlund, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson1974 Dating climatic episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4:9-24.

Young, Robert G. and Joann W.1977 Colorado West, Land of Geology and Wildflowers. Wheelwright Press, Ltd.

12

CRS-16

Appendix A: Files Search Data

13

CRS-17

Files Search for the Hunter Mesa Communications Tower

[T. 7S, R. 92W, Sections 6 and 7; T. 7S, R. 93W, Sections 1,2,11, and 12; T. 6S, R. 92W, Section 31; T. 6S, R.93W, Sections 35 and 36.]

Site ID Site Type Assessment

5GF.227 Open Camp Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.228 Open Camp Not Eligible - Field

5GF.229 Historic Needs Data - Field



5GF.232 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Field

5GF.233 Historic- Archaeology Needs Data - Field


5GF.248 Open Camp Needs Data - Field

5GF.249 Historic, Farming/ranching Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.878 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field






5GF.2996 Historic, Burial Needs Data - Officially




5GF.3413 Open Camp, Historic, Trash Dump Eligible - Officially

5GF.3414 Isolated Find, Historic, Camp Needs Data - Officially

5GF.3416 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.3417 Open Lithic Needs Data - Officially

5GF.3418 Open Camp Eligible - Officially

14

CRS-18



5GF.3420 Open Camp Eligible - Officially




5GF.3424 Open Camp, Paleontological Needs Data - Officially








Survey ID Title/Author/Date/Contractor

GF.LM.NR237 Title: Construction of Water Ditches (S#1014)Author: Kinser, MichaelDate: No dateContractor: Natural Resource Specialist for the Bureau of Land Management, GlenwoodSprings Resource Area

GF.LM.NR144 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory of Northwest Pipeline Corporations Rifle Boulton #1Trunk a Extension Garfield County, Colorado (S#575)Author: Alexander, Robert K.Date: 01/02/1980Contractor: Grand River Consultants, Inc. for Northwest Pipeline Corporation and theBureau of Land Management

MC.R.NR24 Title: Paleontological Resources Evaluation: West Divide ProjectAuthor: Sloan, Robert E., Joseph H. Hartman, Laurie J. Dempsey, Martha E. Jordan, andEddie B. RobertsonDate: 03/01/1980Contractor: Robertson Research, Inc. for the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper ColoradoRegion

15

CRS-19


GF.LM.R129 Title: Archaeological Survey for Gordon Engineers Pool Oil and Gas, Fed. 2-1 (S#743)Author: Born, Philip L.Date: 04/22/1981Contractor: Archaeological Analysis for Armstrong Engineers and Associates, Inc. andthe Bureau of Land Management

GF.LM.BB Title: Brush Beating Allotment 8112Author: Kight William HDate: 03/01/1985Contractor: Blm Glenwood Springs

GF.LM.R224 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory of a Proposed Brush Beating on Allotment #8112 inGarfield County, Colorado (S#871)Author: Kight, William H.Date: 03/21/1985Contractor: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area

MC.LM.R5 Title: Cultural Resource Management Report, Grant-Norpac, Inc., Central PiceanceBasin Prospect Seismic Line #1 Rio Blanco, Garfield and Mesa Counties, ColoradoAuthor: O'Neil, Brian P.Date: 10/12/1988Contractor: Powers Elevation

MC.LM.R16 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory of Northern Geophysical Seismic Explorations nearBattlement Mesa, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado (S#1092)Author: Metcalf, Michael D.Date: 10/01/1989Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R154 Title: Negative Cultural Resources Report of the Grass Mesa Controlled Burn Area,Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Piontkowski, MichaelDate: 05/26/2000Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.NR589 Title: Ballard Petroleum C-35 Well Pad & Access, Garfield County (S#5400-7)Author: Metcalf, Michael D.Date: 06/12/2000Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R173 Title: Ballard Petroleum's I-3, L2, E11, Compressor Location & Associated AccessRoads, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, Colorado (5402-3)Author: Metcalf, Sally J.Date: 10/01/2001Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

16

CRS-20


GF.LM.R211 Title: Encana Oil and Gas Proposed F10 and A10 Well Projects and Proposed GrassMesa 16 Inch Gathering Pipeline: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and SiteTesting, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: O'Brien, Patrick K.Date: 05/01/2002Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R257 Title: Encana Grass Mesa 8 Inch Water Line: Class Iii Cultural Resource Inventory,Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: McKibbin, AnneDate: 05/16/2003Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R254 Title: Negative Cultural Resources Report of the Encana Mamm Creek/Pumba 20 InchPipeline, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Piontkowski, MichaelDate: 08/30/2003Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R330 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (Usa), Inc.: a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the C35Well Pad in Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Brogan, John M.Date: 10/01/2004Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R394 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.: an Intensive Class III Cultural Resources Surveyof the Grass Mesa Geographic Area Plan (Gap) in Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Slaughter, Stephanie and Patrick K. O'BrienDate: 06/01/2005Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R489 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Hunter Mesa toPumba Pipeline Route and the Hunter Mesa Compressor Expansion Project in GarfieldCounty, Colorado for Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (BLM CRVFO # 1111-10) (GRI #2010-52)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 09/08/2010Contractor: Grand River Institute on Behalf of Encana Oil & Gas Inc.

17

CRS-21

Files Search for the High Mesa Communications Tower

[T. 7S, R. 95W Sections 19, 20, 29, 30, 21, 32; T. 7S, R. 96W Sections 24, 25, 36]


5GF.306 Sheltered Camp Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.310 Historic, Habitation Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.362 Historic, Habitation Not Eligible - Field

5GF.388 Historic Not Eligible - Field

5GF.392 Historic, Trail/road Needs Data - Officially

5GF.447 Historic, Farming/ranching Needs Data - Officially

















5GF.594 Historic Eligible - Officially

18

CRS-22


5GF.787 Historic, Habitation Needs Data - Field

5GF.788 Historic, Structure/foundation/alignment Not Eligible - Field

5GF.813 Historic, Habitation Not Eligible - Field

5GF.1057 Sheltered Camp Not Eligible - Field










5GF.1318 Historic Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.1319 Historic Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.1320 Historic, Trash Dump Not Eligible - Officially






19

CRS-23












5GF.2600 Open Camp Needs Data - Officially


5GF.2602 Open Architectural Needs Data - Field









20

CRS-24










5GF.2649 Open Camp, Historic, Isolated Find Needs Data - Field





5GF.3003 Open Architectural Eligible - Officially

5GF.3546 Historic, Isolated Feature Not Eligible - Field

5GF.3549 Isolated Find, Historic, Trash Dump Not Eligible - Officially



5GF.3631.1 Historic, Water Control Eligible - Officially

5GF.3631.2 Historic, Water Control Eligible - Officially


21

CRS-25


5GF.3638 Historic, Water Control Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.3761 Historic, Camp Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.3763 Historic, Structure/foundation/alignment Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.3765 Historic, Structure/foundation/alignment Not Eligible - Officially

5GF.3766 Historic, Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field


5GF.3836 Historic, Isolated Feature Not Eligible - Field

5GF.3840.1 Historic, Water Control Not Eligible - Officially








5GF.4145 Historic, Trash Dump Not Eligible - Officially




22

CRS-26


GF.LM.NR164 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report of Lands Proposed for the Grand ValleySewage Treatment Plant for Paragon Engineering, Inc.Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 02/15/1980Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R131 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report of Proposed Gas Wells H-25-7-96s andD-31-7-95s for Fuel Resources Development Company (GRI 7974, S#584)Cultural Resources Inventory Report of Proposed Gas Well D-31-7-95s for FuelResources Development Company (S#641, Addendum)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 05/07/1980Contractor: Grand River Institute

MC.LM.R371 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory of Six Segments of the Parachute - De Beque 8 InchLoop Line Occurring on BLM Lands in Mesa and Garfield Counties for Western SlopeGas CompanyAuthor: Conner Carl E; Crum Sally MDate: 03/01/1982Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R218 Title: Parachute De Beque Loop LineAuthor: Conner Carl E; Crum Sally MDate: 03/01/1982Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.NR15 Title: Superior Oil Company 30-11-FederalAuthor: Metcalf, Michael D.Date: 06/27/1984Contractor: Bureau of Land Management

MC.LM.R355 Title: Preliminary Report of the 1984 Field Season Cultural Resources Inventory for theRifle to Grand Junction Segment of the Colorado-Ute Electric Association Rifle to SanJuan 345 Kv Transmission Line Project - Report #7 (Original Report and ThreeAddenda)Author: Charles, Mona C. and Wayne HowellDate: 06/01/1985Contractor: Nickens and Associates

GF.LM.RSJ1 Title: Rifle to Grand Junction Segment 345 KvAuthor: Horn Jonathon CDate:09/01/1985Contractor: Nickens and Assoc

MC.LM.R376 Title: Report No. 11: Cultural Resources Inventory of Conductor Pulling Sites for theRifle to Grand Junction Segment of Colorado-Ute Electric Association Rifle to San Juan345 Kv Transmission Line Project (S#902)Author: Horn, Jonathon CDate: 09/01/1985Contractor: Nickens and Associates

23

CRS-27


GF.H.R1 Title: Battlement Mesa Area Cultural Resources StudyAuthor: Conner, Carl E., Langdon, Danni L.Date: 12/01/1987Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.NR581 Title: Graham Resources Inc. Pipeline for #D-31-7-955 Fed. Well (BLM GSRA 1090)Author: Kight, BillDate: 10/01/1989Contractor: White River National Forest

MC.LM.R68 Title: Grant Norpac Cultural Resource Inventory of a 39 Mile Seismic Line, Mesa andGarfield Counties, ColoradoAuthor: Scott, John MDate: 04/01/1991Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R107 Title: Tom Brown, Inc., High Mesa Access Roads Class I Cultural Resource InventoryGarfield County, Colorado (BLM S#5498-6)Author: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 11/01/1997Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R277Title: Tom Brown Inc., Parachute Federal 31-22 Well Pad and Access Road Class IIICultural Resource Inventory Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 08/01/1998Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R278Title: Tom Brown Inc. Parachute Federal 25-32 Well Pad and Access Road, Class IIICultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Mcdonlad, KaeDate: 08/26/1998Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.NR700 Title: Tom Brown, Inc. Parachute Federal 30-14 Well Pad and Access Road, Class IIICultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 08/26/1998Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.NR600 Title: Tom Brown, Inc., Parachute Federal 29-22 Well Pad and Access Road, Class IIICultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 09/02/1998Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R178 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory for the High Mesa Wildlife Habitat ImprovementProject Garfield County, Colorado (BLM-GSRA S# 1098-20)Author: Seacat, Todd B.Date: 12/01/1998Contractor: Bureau of Land Management

24

CRS-28


GF.LM.NR576 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for a Proposed Access to a Drip Locationalong the Parachute-to-De Beque Loop Line in Garfield County, Colorado. (GRI No.9922)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 04/30/1999Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.NR613 Title: Tom Brown, Inc. South Parachute Federal #29-14 Well Pad and Access RoadClass III Cultural Resource Inventory Garfield County, Colorado (GSFO #5401-6)Author: Pennefather-O'Brien, Elizabeth and Dulaney BarclayDate: 06/18/2001Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R213 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Canyon GasResources Bentley Phase II Gas Pipeline in Garfield County, Colorado Proposed Reroutein Garfield County, Colorado: Addendum 1Author: Pennefather-O'Brien, Elizabeth and John M. Brogan (Addendum)Date: 08/01/2002Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R255 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Canyon GasResources South Parachute Gas Pipeline in Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Pennefather-O'Brien, ElizabethDate: 08/01/2003Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R339 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Four Well Locations and RelatedAccess/pipeline Routes in Garfield County, Colorado for Noble Energy, Inc. (GRI No.2481)Author: Conner, Carl E. and Barabra J. DavenportDate: 12/20/2004Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R314 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc.: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for theProposed Parachute PH-25-7-96 Well, Access and Pipeline Development in GarfieldCounty, ColoradoAuthor: Bott, Tracy and Patrick O'BrienDate: 05/01/2005Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.R315 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Two Segments of a ProposedWater Pipeline in the Dry Creek Area of Garfield County, Colorado for Presco, Inc.(GRI 2513)Author: Conner, Carl E. and Barbara J. DavenportDate: 05/05/2005Contractor: Grand River Institute

25

CRS-29


GF.LM.R325 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed South Parachute #22-8Well Location and Related Access (0.75 Mile) in Garfield County, Colorado forWilliams Production RMT (GRI #2521, 5/13/05) Author: Davenport, Barabara Date: 05/13/2005 Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R316 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc.: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for theProposed Parachute PB-30-7-95 and Pg-30-7-95 Well, Access and PipelineDevelopments in Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: O'Brien, PatrickDate: 06/01/2005Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R338 Title: Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline to PH-1 Well ClassIII Cultural Resource Inventory Garfield County, Colorado Author: Bambrey, Lucy Hackett Date: 11/01/2005 Contractor: Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. for Wagon Wheel Consultingand the BLM, Glenwood Springs Field Office

GF.LM.NR781 Title: Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline from PM 1-19 Wellto Existing Pipeline East of PI-19 Well Class III Cultural Resource Inventory GarfieldCounty, Colorado (2107)Author: Spath, CarlDate: 12/05/2005Contractor: Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.R449Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed and AlternateRoutes of the South Parachute Pipeline Extension in Garfield County, Colorado forEncana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. (GRI 2638)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date:05/15/2006Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R450 Title: Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. South Parachute Geographic Area, 20 WellLocations Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield County, Colorado (BLMGSFO# 14606-3)Author: Spath, CarlDate: 06/01/2006Contractor: Arcadis-Greystone

GF.LM.NR816Title: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. PN-20-7-95 Well Pad, Access Road, and Pipeline, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory in Garfield County, Colorado (BLM GSFO#5406-15 Nepa Co-140-06-149 EA)Author: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 09/11/2006Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

26

CRS-30


MC.LM.R524 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Noble PB Gap in Garfieldand Mesa Counties, Colorado for Noble Energy, Inc. (GRI No. 2668)(GSFO#1106-19) Author: Conner, Carl E. James C. Miller and Nicole Darnell Date: 09/21/2006 Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.NR817 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.Visual Mitigation Plan in Garfield County, Colorado (GRI No. 26113)(BLM # GSFO#1107-10)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 11/10/2006Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R387 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for an 80-acre Block of BLM LandRelated to the Proposed Sg 41-26 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado, forWilliams Production RMT (GRI No. 2637)(BLM GSFO# 1107-23)Author: Darnell, NicoleDate: 05/07/2007Contractor: BLM Glenwood Spring Field Office

GF.LM.NR853 Title: Addendum To: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. South Parachute Gap Area, 2007Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, Colorado (BLM 5407-14a)Author: Mcdonald, KaeDate: 07/06/2007Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

MC.LM.R515 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Collbran PipelineProject in Garfield and Mesa Counties Colorado, for Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc.(BLM-GJFO No. 1107-12)(GRI No. 2781)Author: Conner, Carl E.Date: 12/19/2007Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R451 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the ETC Canyon South Parachute LoopPipeline, Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Piontkowski, MichaelDate: 06/01/2008Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.NR890 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc.: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of theProposed PH 26 Well Pad and Access Road in Garfield County, ColoradoAuthor: Bott, TracyDate: 01/07/2009Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

GF.LM.NR858 Title: Encana Oil & Gas, PI-20-7-95 Well Pad and AccessAuthor: Metcalf, Sally J. Date: 09/29/2009Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

27

CRS-31


GF.LM.NR906 Title: Encana: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed PJ-19 Well-padBuried Flowline in Garfield County, Colorado (GSFO# 5410-6)Author: Kintz, KimberlyDate: 04/21/2010Contractor: Blm, Glenwood Springs Field Office

GF.LM.NR904 Title: Encana Oil & Gas Proposed PE25 Pipeline: a Class III Cultural ResourceInventory in Garfield County, Colorado (GSFO # 5410-5)Author: Williams, GarrettDate: 04/23/2010Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

GF.LM.NR922 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Proposed High Mesa 16 InchDischarge Pipeline on Private Land in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil & GasInc. (BLM # 1111-1)Author: Davenport, BarbaraDate: 07/29/2010Contractor: Grand River Institute

GF.LM.R488 Title: Encana PD-31b WPA: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of a Well Pad andAccess Road in Garfield County, Colorado (BLM CRVFO # 5411-2)Author: Stahl, JennyDate: 08/01/2010Contractor: BLM, Colorado River Valley Field Office

GF.LM.R497 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report of a Battlement Block Area #2 (1620Acres) in Garfield County, Colorado for Noble Energy, Inc. (BLM # 1111-23)Author: Conner, Carl E., and Barbara DavenportDate: 12/08/2010Contractor: Grand River Institute

28

CRS-32

Documents

Class I Cultural Resource Study - Garfield County, Colorado › WebLink › 0 › edoc › 739002 › 1.1… · Class I Cultural Resource Study . Encana High Mesa PN-30 Communication