Answers_to_RFIs_4-14_0001.docx

ANSWERS TO RFIs 4/14 What proportion (percentage) of each project location (Steamboat Butte, Mill Creek, E-Bar-R) have been previously inventoried? It is understood that the entirety of each project area location will be subjected to new Class III inventory, but knowing the approximate coverage of previous survey will aid in estimating site density for calculating costs.

I don’t know the percentage of previous inventory, but I know for Steamboat and Mill Creek it’s a low number. The 10 sites in Section 21 for Steamboat were documented without completing inventory, if that tells you something. I don’t have a map available for E Bar, but I think Sections 11, 12 and 14 were surveyed in 2003.

Previously recorded site count:

Photographs are not to show people, shadows, or gear. May pin flags be used in photographs to help identify hard to see features such as depressions, stone circles, low rock cairns, etc. that may be obscured by vegetation?

Pin flags are ok in photos when what is being pointed out is clear.

Two sites have been previously determined as eligible. It is stated in Section III, second paragraph that:

“The eligible sites shall be visited and site forms updated if the sites are older than or have not been updated within five years.”

Do you know if the site forms for these two sites (24ML0794, 24ML0798) have been updated within the last five years, or is that information only available through the file search?

Sites 24ML0794 and 795 were recorded in 2003 and have not been updated.

In Section III, third paragraph it states “The undetermined or unresolved sites shall be relocated, evaluated for the NRHP, and ...”

This appears to indicate that all of the undetermined/unresolved sites should be evaluated through the course of this Class III inventory. However, in Section V. I. 1. g, third paragraph the scope of work states that:

“Contractor shall clearly describe the rationale used to determine which sites are eligible, unevaluated, and not eligible. Contractor shall recommend treatment needed to better assess eligibility on unevaluated sites. It is assumed that the usual course of action for archaeological sites (at least for sites not considered to be potential Traditional Cultural Properties or human burials) would be formal site testing.”

This suggests that it is acceptable and expected that some sites will not be able to be evaluated by common Class III inventory methods. Is this correct? Is there an expectation that some undetermined/unresolved sites will remain unevaluated after this inventory, and that recommendations for formal testing (or avoidance) will be made?

Section V.I.1.g is wordy and confusing. Section III. Specific Background includes that shovel probing/testing is considered part of Class III inventory and should be included in identification efforts.

Class III methods are fine, including shovel or auger testing if needed. Formal testing won’t be part of the contract.

I prefer we get as much evaluated either way as possible; yes, recommendations like “formal testing needed for evaluation” are expected.

A question of language: The narrative in scope of work uses the term “pre-contact” however the tables use the term “prehistoric” as does the current CRIS form; although the CRIS attachment sheet listing the site types and time periods use the “pre-contact” term. Which term is preferred for the quote response and subsequent reports?

Either “precontact” or “prehistoric” works.