ML20069B966

Cultural Resources Mgt Plan for Residual Lands at Union Electric Co Callaway Plant,Callaway,Mo

ML20069B966
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	03/31/1992
From:	Mcnerney M AMERICAN RESOURCES GROUP, LTD.
To:
Shared Package
ML20069B922	List: ML20069B966
References
PROC-920331, NUDOCS 9405310239
Download: ML20069B966 (57)

Text

,

~1

.4

.; - s; ~' -

ENCLOSURE.2

+

A Cultural Resources Managment Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric Company-Callaway Plant Callaway County, Missouri Prepared for

.i Union Electric Company J

3 By American Resources Group, Ltd.

Carbondale, Illinois d

Principal Investigator and Author -

Michael _J. McNerney

' Cultural Resources Management March 1992 Report No.-52

^

i 9405310239 940524

~

'PDR. ADOCK 05000483 lP

PDRs,

..a.

ABSTEACT A cultural resources management plan based on a Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment (Ray et al. 1983) on 5,848 acres of residual lands and Phase II testing at sites 23CY20, 23CY352, and 23CY359 (Traver 1985) at the Union Electric Company's Callavay Plant, located in Callaway County, Missouri, is presented.

One hundred twenty nine cultural resources sites were identified' and evaluated during the Phase I survey and assessment: 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21 architectural sites. Twenty three prehistoric archaeological sites are recommended as potentially eligible f or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and two historie sites are recommended as potentially eligible. None of the historic architectural resources is considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The remaining prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places; however, the sites vill be protected from subplov zone disturbance by this management plan.

i

e-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The entire staf f at American Resources Group, Ltd., would like to thank the personnel of Union Electric Company Environmental Services Depa'rtment, Nuclear Engineering Department, and Real Estate Department for their cooperation and assistance throughout the project. Special thanks to Mr. David J. Wambold for his patience, perseverance, and good-natured cooperation. Additionally, we would like to thank our professional consultants during this project: Dr. Dale R. Henning, consulting archaeologist, and Dr. George Fraunfelter, consulting geologist /geomorphologist.

h 11 a

m

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract............................................................

1 Acknowledgments....................................................

11 Introduction........................................................

1 Current and Future Land Use.........................................

3 Cultural Resources Management.......................................

5 Summa ry of Cul t u r a l Re s ou rces......................................

10 Prehistoric Resources.................

Historic Resources...............................................

10 Architectural Resources......................

21 22 Evaluation of Site Significance....................................

22' Prehistoric Sites................................................

22 Significant Historic Archaeological Sites........

Historical Architectural Sites...................

39 40 Potential Adverse Impacts..........................................

40 Management Recommendations and Guidelines..........................

42 References.........................................................

51 List of Figures 1.

Site Identification Marker.....................................

49 List of Maps 1.

Operation and Maintenance 2ones.................................

4 2.

Cultural Resources and Land Use Patterns on Residual Lands.....

11 3.

Operation and Maintenance Zones with Significant Cultural Resources.............................................

27 ListofTables 1.

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeolo Residual Lan'ds....................gical Sites Located On 12 2.

1 Management Recommendations for Potentially Significant Sites...

44 iii I

I

A CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESIDUAL LANDS AT THE UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI Introduction

, This management plan, the Phase I cultural resources survey (Ray et al.1983) and Phase II testing at three sites (Traver 1985) upon which it is based represents Union Electric Company's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (P.L.89-665 and 96-515), Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 as amended, and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment). Completion of the Phase I survey and accompanying management plan also provides documentation evidencing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission compliance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties), and other applicable federal and state regulations.

A Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment of approximately 5,848 acres (2,366 ha) was conducted on residual lands which surround the Union Electric Company Callaway Plant located in central Missouri 10 mi east of Fulton, Missouri (Ray et al.1983). The primary objective of the Phase I survey and assessment was to locate, evaluate, and identify ~

potentially significant cultural resources; and the primary purpose of the management plan is to provide guidance for the preservation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Missouri Department of 1

Conservaticn manages the residual lands under a lease agreement with the property owner, Union Electric Company. A management plan currently in effect (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976) recommends that the highest management priority is to maintain a diverse, high quality natural environment which will provide recreational activities such as fishing, controlled hunting, nature study, and other compatible activities the Company may wish to incorporate. The cultural resources management plan vill supplement the existing land use management plan and vill be used by the Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation as a planning tool. Implementation and coordination of this plan is the responsibility of Union Electric Company's Radiological Engineering and Environmental Services departments.

Prior to the construction of the plant and related facilities.

Union Electric Company met federal legislative and regulatory requirements by funding cultural resources surveys in direct impact zones. During the period 1975 through 1979, Evans (1975, 1979) and Evans and Ives (n.d., 1973, 1978, 1979a, 1979b) wrote seven assessment reports. Also, direct impact zones were surveyed in conjunction with this project (McNerney 1982; Tucker and Morin 1981a, 1981b). This management plan includes the results of all surveys done on plant property.

This cultural resources management plan consists of two parts. The first includes background information such as the legal authority for-the study, previous cultural resources studies prepared for the plant. -

and related construction activities, current land use, concepts and definitions of cultural resources management, summary of potentially

~

2

.i

significant cultural resources identified during the Phase I survey, and a discussion of direct and indirect adverse impacts. The second part of the report provides a discussion of the National Register nomination process and guidance for implementation of the management plan.

Current and Future Land Use

'There are two general types of land use at the Callaway Plant site, operation and maintenance areas and wildlife management areas (residual lands). Activities associated with each of the two areas are different and thus require different cultural resources management approaches.

Operation and maintenance zones include electrical transmi_ssion

_s lines, heavy haul road, settling ponds, railroad spur, quarry, waterlines (underground), emergency operations f acility, meteorological tower, landfill area, borrow pits, and ecology plots (Map 1). Activities in these areas vould include inspection, repair,. maintenance, monitoring, and, in the case of the borrow pits, earthmoving. Cultural resources surveys and assessments have been completed and reviewed by the MSHPO at all of these operation and maintenance locations (Evans 1975, 1979; Evans and Ives n.d.,

1973, 1978, 1979a, 1979b; McNerney 1982; Tucker and Morin 1981a, 1981b). These assessments were carried out ahead of construction and, with the exception of site 23Cy20, did not impact significant cultural resources. Excavations were carried out to mitigate the impacts of railroad construction at site 23Cy20 (Evans 1975; Evans and Ives 1979a). Therefore, with regard to future cultural resources management decisions within operation and maintenance zones, consideration must be given to the fact that (1) all areas have received 3

i

,ef %

• C, g l

e p

9

~

y,p ---

_ _ __g

' * ' ' _.

• l O

..s 1

l

=..r

~

o

! h.,k.;.., ;. -

=

~

M.M.

s a.

s.

_._...2._.

%,... m...

.. p(

-l

[Il Kv Construction Fower Lines E

_l V

!Cens tevetion Power $wtis tatica l I!

'.A s

s

/-

it.

.( 8 4

mine/o'ua rryl v.:

c

e

. sq 345 av reansatision Linel g.

i e

..~"'",4,.,

3 I

f I 1

=::s

-~

W,. -

ee.

e

~~-]

^lsetit! assn'esl,

/

~

n re.., n,a no..>

j,,,,,,,,,

4 I

8 '.

/

i g

t'j 12 KV Lonstruction Power Lines j 4'

b e

]."

/

e

/

/ /.

g s'

plant site /

Lievency opee as facilityJ p IProceseo s'orria, atul

,e,,e

,. s

/

g*

1anttary Lancf tll)

<.j K

v E,

......., /

+

4 1

e j.

.rcL.vsca.

,, g k

4,,.:::V zog e.-

e.,:

.. ~

i (-

j D45 o Trarsmisstoa Line _.

's v,

./

t

'a

.p...-

IFWture 51ucce 1s pess i 5 s t e-i l f'

hI: ology 8totj

)

,s I)).6 KV feeder Linel

• 5 v

~ ;

5 6

e

!345 KV Transmission Linej f

l 3

%B ve..,

.a nose

.[.

.a 3

b=-

b

?

WI

! I '1r.'.

C-Coeratier sac mietenance Zones ltat1reseSewel M

,.D I

/*.

1r

.e v.

i ms J'.

h e

e

t. eca

,1

.t. ;.

..a ca n,,,,,,,

• - ~ ~

~

/

Ie,ag dr sur tema iCamp*,t 7.J {

.s.e.e Ense4 b Se Cmeme er teaset8e her 8spo 4

/

Sapees tuer I

e j

ti j

i 8v.=me

• some 4 Damage e

j 3es.e Ds e gem, ses 4/w a

-*=

===8

/

a j;... b r wn Law '

Ems ewe l

M 8.* *ac.e, (mungy sms., 8hd.

n.e u r

f

r e

(

g a s n, The. 3 av,

)

/

)

p ieres *** Lrve Tha' 8 88P'

%[

. ope..,on.ne ~,nten.,e zone,

. w.

= p~

.s' 7**gw

(

T'

-u e... '..,

-\\

.s.

am s*

==+ %"'-*s : -

- i' '

h[eticur,epioeiiner

__._h, fatine rioeisneT

/

4

w survcy and. assessnent, (2) all areas have been impacted by previous -

construction activity, and (31 all cultural resources sites which are within the operation and maintenance zones (23CY20, 23Cy352, and 23Cy359) vill be protected by this management plan.

The residual lands at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant site are being managed to enhance vildlife habitat and provide fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities for any individual, group, or organization wishing to make use of these privileges. Land use patterns, either planned or existing, which support and facilitate this management plan include forest habitat (5,251 acres), fishing ponds (10 ponds over one-half acre), crop lands (2,480 acres crop and pasture), access roads, hiking and equestrian trails, parking lots, and picnicing areas. The aereages may change slightly from year to year depending on agricultural, recreational, and wildlife management practices. A visitor's interpretive center also has been proposed (Missouri Department of Conservati!21976). Potentially significant cultural resources within vildlife management and agricultural zones vill be protected by this management plar.

Cultural Resources Manacement cultural resourcer constitute a fragile, limited nonrenewable portion of the total environment. Because they are the physical legacy of various stages of past human lifeways, they are illustrative of man's cultural development. Cultural resources include prehistoric and

' historic archaeologiclil resources and historic architectural resources.

These resources are represented Ly sites, buildings, districts, and objects (Executive Order Counseling Notes Revised 8/1/74).

5

cultural resources management is tied inextricably to a body of federal legislation. The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 in recognition that cultural resources (archaeological sites only at that time) required protection from destruction. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 provided for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance. More rectutly, the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966),

the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974), and the Archaeological Resources Act (1979) have expanded greatly the role of the federal government in the area of cultural resources management. Central to this legislation and cultural resources management are the concepts of preservation either through data recovery prior to destruction or protection through avoidance.

Assessing the nature of cu)* ural resources requires special techniques and methods, which may be thought of as " cultural resource management" (King et al. 1977:8). These authors describe the many dimensions of cultural resources management in an entire volume. While many nonspecialists are required to evaluate reports and to make decisions about cultural resources, these persons often do not have the time nor the inclination to review the growing body of literature on the subject. For the present purposes, a brief review of the idea in the form of a working definition vill be useful.

~..

Cultural resources management seeks to have control (in action and use) and to have responsibility for sites, structures, objects, and districts which are historically, architecturally, archaeologically, or culturally significant.

Implementation of such control or responsibility may include inventory, assessment, recovery, research, protection, 6

• j' preservation, and enhancement, depending upon individual resources and circumstances (McNerney 1978:93).

This definition emphasizes the control of and responsibility.for cultural resources, a situation with _which many landowning agencies and corporations find themselves confronted today. The primary practitioners of the discipline are anthropologists and archaeologists (requiring a variety of supporting specialists in the physical and natural sciences),

historians, and architectural historians. Other disciplines' rapidly becoming involved administrative 1y in cultural resources management include land managers, planners, environmental planners, engineers,.

ecologists, real estate developers, and recreation managers. At the present time, the agencies which vill be primarily involved in the management of cultural resources on the residual lands vill be Union Electric Company, Missouri Department of conservation, the Nuclear

-t P.egulatory Commission, and the Missouri Office of Historic Preservation.

i Using the above definition, the management process may be briefly outlined.

The first step of the management process involves inventory and assessment: the review of previously recorded resources, the location and inventory of unrecorded resources on.the landscape, the assessment of the significance of the resources, and the assessment of potential adverse impacts which may threaten the resources. These are the major considerations ordinarily addressed in a Phase I survey and assessment. ~

A central issue during. this ph'ase and throughout the management process-is the determination of significance. The evaluation of nignificance Includes the collection and analysis of artif acts from archaeological' 3

. ;f

1 sites, shovel tests or soil probings to determine the vertical and horizontal limits of the site, and the evaluation of architectural sites for historic significance.

Next, a conclusion regarding the significance of the site is offered by the investigator. This conclusion is based on the evaluation of the results of the survey and the National Register of Historic Places criteria for significance. The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources 6

and to indicate what properties should be considered fortprotection from destruction or impairment. The National Register was designed to be and is administered as a planning tool. The criteria are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in

~

districts, sites, buildings, integrity of location, design, setting, materials, worker.nship, feeling, and association, and:

(1) That are associated with events that have made a

significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (2) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (3) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (4) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Federal Recister, 1976:1595).

In 1987 a Master Plan for Archaeolocical Resource Protection in Missouri (Weston and Weichman, editors, 1987) was published. The ~ Study Units, cultural Units, and R'esearch Questions presented in this document 8

i i

should also be considered in preparing research designs and evaluating the significance of the cultural resources at the Callavay plant should any resources be impacted which would require Phase II testing in the future.

The investigator's conclusion regarding the eligibility of a particular property for nomination to the National Register is reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer in consultation with the agencies involved. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is a state official appointed by the governor whose job it is to insure that the cultural resources of the state are not destroyed arbitrarily and to make recommendations to protect such resources. It is the SHPO who helps make certain that the legal responsibilities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 are fulfilled. If the SHP0 and the concerned agencies agree that the properties do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the National Register, the ' matter goes no further and the properties may be altered. If the agencies and the SHPO agree that the properties are eligible, or if they cannot agree, or if some question exists regarding the eligibility of the nominated properties, final determination of eligshility rests with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, a multicomponent office within the National Park Service, the core unit of which is the National Register of Historic Places (King et al. 1977:88). If the properties do not meet any of the criteria, no further action is required. If the property is determined eligible, then appropriate preservation measures are developed by the responsible agencies.

Following the indentification and assessment phase of the cultural resources management process, land use limitations are offered which are designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicated earlier, cultural resources are fragile, limited, nonrenewable portions of the 9

~

1

(-

1

. natural and.- cultural environment; anyi direct land altering' activities 1

e (ie. roads, reservoirs) or indirect impacts (ie. Increased public use of 1

an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the site.

t

-These potential impacts or adverse effects are evaluated, and appropriate sitigative alternatives are offered. Mitigation may in::1ude avoidance, data recovery through' excavation, or other means~ of preservation.

The foregoing provides a brief outline of the cultural resources-management process including: a definition of cultural' resources, - a summary definition of cultural resources management, a discussion 'of significance, and key. concepts of cultural resources sanagement.

These concepts vill serve as a framework within which to develop a cultural.

resources management plan for the residual lands.

Summary of cultural Resources One hundred twenty nine sites (Map 2, Table 1) were identified and evaluated during the Phase I survey and assessment; 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21 architectural sites. For more specific.information'regarding individual sites and related research information, the. reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources report (Ray et al. 1983).

Prehistoric Resources of the 79 prehistoric sites, cultural affiliation could not be determined for 62 sites (78.5%) due to'the' absence of culturally.

diagnostic artif acts. Forty two (53.2%) of the sites recorded produced -

10 vaste flakes or less. Cultural affiliation was established for 17 (21.5U sites.

10

.f E'qW T~:m?,i

(,N'

• s... -

p.yg3;r.'~7.- o 4.@.:.

qs

%m w

e m.

2

...t,, %T "'!, n,o % g..,

- u.. 4=

i d'$?

I5 m.WL.

ht.... Dg.[frr. nFo..- A%*I :,y 4

t,b*.,.~3

--.v r v rn. -

r,m v '

afnu,,.3.:n $r

...R. 9 m s ti. E. yof: %aVM 8

r-Y m:n, p

'E /

i 7"^i

[A I f!

Y lg"L g

= 4 +(/4 m.;p;d5Th....:.

g-4-p: --,,, :,, f a-

~..

s

,,.c%n,

.f h ! sa,.,g>ik 4 u

' 4*"

A

,i-Li

.u.

i s

0

&* q.,g,,-O g.

f8

%1 g ~1 y

251 8 78.

aar l h "252

• j g

q /.

25,8

• e 0 B*

&m]pm

- :n. %

- - =-

v. t,q...d r

"1....,,C. ~.3;s m.%p. t i

K..

~

... c...w W4 A.17 :

/

f e Al r *. n%s,e.;

.J M,h.%

r i

. $r' Of *h'.e

. gt/h y'.'@r,'.- w

,g

?/;v 28) t

,,N 31M." l,,

/

'f.'

's

.. ! 3 6.,C)3f m !'I..g,p

,,g.,

N?,.' r* 7 c\\ y.?,, j,,.,v;?rk,W:.:.+" I; h/:')

.? g W18*f

...h.y' **i i-l,wpi.w }

S J

.r, et e i.o

/.. q

• .r,

• e '.'I h.Y. 9 'rs, h ggg f h a 4 e

s."*:{,'l-Y

$ *....r d ".2,u. l}t: 7.

..gs.'r'r t) \\%**s

. Q.

1 yf *.'.

l e**

. k.v i 312 5..e.

+

.r 7

Y. '?~IN'?wd*' y 6::::,.pe.0a,'flE;gl!..fs.es t*

.re Airn Q,h, h G 'I bj b.$ &;*

?-

s GSnEff{,lMhq.'.,%.;,;p 'l,.g&* p.,:q' ggj M.-

9

~

j:y;:.cmsus.L

> s, n, *

1. ., gl

~}

f i;,.e t . t

• • R,, ' b * =rIf.tf.'e j

ggy rgi

\\

' d.,

i?

N 9

.ffg g,*,,

w2 m

==

gs,a{.., f.,h

.[.,gb

• r

'4 ty Cultes1 Resentes and Land D$e

]

1. 4tteens on Residwal Lands

.,, }$

,9 g 7, e

_tf!!A*

4 '.

k l.//

d.

]O r.

gj).j

' h,

• • 1. ,. l332 l 66 a

~l

.......u...

k.l, s.

4:

s Sa (

h

?.,jg#*'I *e 7J5.k'*1 h

4.=u e.w Ge me 4= ass 4C.,,'

.... s

5. a j

s Pr a

b s. t

, nr e, e u.yj.g a,,,,,,,,',y,*[)

..y'

',r h

.4 JJ; 4J6 e

l., s o a tca.e,.

r j

ea.eee

[,

t N,4,g. g 4 aw

'pk'"g.gi gg 'y 0

/

M

.j

.. 4 ausw,.

-. - m se (a.=e 6mee att AN

- - - ]*, -

gg gygggy g g m M wowe y.

....%. g,%,, f., ps' E e6. art amte, as act.tas tw La y..'

'5;, ge g, e; y,*,,,

g',=

64H; * '" '

---

4 35 -,

c:=m e

~ -

h Fw,.,UQiCl2

's A '/

C""""""*'*""'"**"

-7 s e

o,.. -.

547 d,T=

. C 8. vit

[

35 355

.e.','me'w",*e e.csa.weeise' tite

• g, t t'p">

,7, g

i j

4-3A6 s

glp wi

.ui s.ie -

e S2 j i #

1 i."; *,

m

++st, se a.satsers, st lite s

.,S a

$1te W rt

, y, 3...

1 faas Preceded by 2J Cf n--

i g.ttebPv-11

r table i Prehlstoric and Historic Archaeological Sites tecated on Residdal Lands Union Electric Company. Calloway Nuclear Power Plant Site Site Sec Appron Cultural

$tte Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land itse New No.

Site Affiliation Land Use 23CT.

(Acres) llaltationso Potentfal** ~

LEVtt tfPtAND PNAIRIC (n-41) 242*

13 Prehlstorfc

/Enapping Agel Weeds Subplow rene disturbance facieston zone Not ellglble 251 15 39.0 Prehistorte

/ N pping Agrt Crop stubble Subplow roce disturbance Not ellglble 252*

15 8.0 Prehlsteric

/Enapping Agri Grass Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible 253*

12

.I5 Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agel Weeds Subplow rene disturbance Not,ligible 70 254 14 19.5 Prehlstoric

. Casp / Knapping Agrt Cultivated Satelow rene disturbance Not eligtble Crop stubble 255 11 12.1 Prehlsteric Cas, /Enapping Agri Cultfested Subplaw rene disturbance Not eligible Crop stubble 256*

11 5.9 Middle-Late Camp /Enappfng Agri Cultivated subplew rene disturbance Not eligible Archaic Crop stubble 257 1

14.8 Prehistoric /

N/ Camp /Enapping Agri Cultivated Limited Agri Ellgtble Mtstorfc Fabricating trop stubble Processing 258*

2 1.0 Prehistoric

/Enapping Agri Cultivated Sobplow rene disturbance Not eligible trop stubble 259 18

.I

,'Nfstoric Cemetery / Serial Cemetery Weeds, brush Avold Not eligible Legend: Sec - Sectfen Nuder U - tlneble to Evaluate

-allef ted Agriculture-see page 38 N. Nonhabitation Type (evtbulldings)

H - Ifabitation Avold-see page 39 0 - Ofstard (dump)

• - Site with fewer than 10 Artifacts

• • Nonelfgtble designations are based on the results of the Phase I survey. There is the remote possiblilt'y that these sites may be eligtble and are protected by the recommendations la this manageweent plan.

~.,

a Table t. (cont.)

' Site Sec - Approm Celteral Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover tend use

. NeNP No 51:e

- Affilletten tend Use (g,gtettons, Potential ** -

23CY.

(Acres)

Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow rene disterbance.

- Not ellglble 260*

13 NI 13

.1 Mistoric N

Nonegri Forest, brush Aveld

[Ilgtble.

MF 2

8.2-Pales Ces,-/Raepping Agri Crop stebble Lletted agrl fall ple*

Eligible for surface collectlen 269 11

.5 Mistoric N

Nonogri Forest. brush Subplow rene distirbance Not eligible 270 11 17.25 Prehtstoric temp /tnapping Agri

- Celttvated Setplow rene distertence Not eligible Crop stubble 211'

'll

.1 Mtsterte

-N Nonogri Forest, brush.5ebplow rene distortance Not eligible-273 19, I

Historte N

Nonegel Forest Subpism rene distortance Not eligible 274

18 2.4 Prehlsteric

/Enesping Agri Crsy stubble Sebplow rene distortance Not ellglble 275*

2 2.5 Prehistoric

/Knepping Aget trop stubble Sebplow rene distwebence Not eitgtbte -

216 3-2.5 Nister'ic M. N Nonegri Forest Subplow rene distortance Net et tgtble

' 2FF

. 10

.9 Mistoric Mellend Cemetery Drosh Aveld Not eligible -

hld 1

Cemetery 218 le i

. Historic N.

Agri Gross Sainplow rene distortance Not eligible; 279 10 I

Historic

.N Nonogrl ideeds,' brush Subplow rene distortance Not ettglble.

29l*

11 71 Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Agrf ~

Crop stubble Subplow rene distertence

' Not eligtble 295 le 1

Mistoric H'

Agel, Grass Subplow rene disterton'ce Not eligible' -

29F 1

.3

' Mistoric

. Il Nonegri Forest

. Sebplow rene disterbance Not eligtble I-

-+-

s 6.

A.

n..

t m-.--

umL A h*A-s.

m e

en L

t==

b.T e cGi -

.o Juf#'

d W

t.6-

-um e

+

mm

~

.Pues '-

Th a

4 uV'-

w g

e-sT

- i "

m gr

1 a

Table 1 (cont.)

Site Sec Appree Calterst

$lte Type / Activity Present Ground tw er Land Use MRTIP Me Stre Affiliation lami U5e timitations' Potential **

FXf.

(Acres) 2g6 1

3.4 Prehlsteric

/rnapping Agel Crop stm%Ie subplow tone disturbance not eligsgle 300 2

i Historic M

Agri Crop stubble Subplow rene disturbance het eligible 30l*

2

.6 Prehistoric

/rnapping Agri Crop stv 21e Subplow tone disturbance Not eligible 302 3

.5 Prehistoric Ca, /rnapping Agel Cultivated Subplow rene disturbem e Not eligible 303 to 14.8 Early Archale Ca.,

/Enapping Agel Crop stv%le limited Agvl' tilgible food processing 308*

10 10.25 Prehlsteric

/Enapping Agri Crop stv%Ie Subplow tone disturbance Not ellglble Z

309 to 13.5 tate Archaic Camp /Enapping Agri Ceep st=%1e limited Agri tilglbie Hunting, butchering 311 Il 23.9 Prehlsteric Camp /Inspping Agri Crop stubble Sebplow tone disturbance Not eligible 312 Il 1

Mistoric H

Nenagri Forest 54bplow tone disturbance Not eligible 313 11 62 Prehlstoric Camp /Enapping Agri Crop statele Subplew rene disturbeste Not eligible 314 ll

.25 Prehistoric Caso /Enapping Agel Cro, stebble tielted Agrl tilgible (feature) 315*

13

.7 Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agri Crop stubtfle Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible -

319 14 I

Historic N

Agrl Crop sti,%1e subplow tone disturbance Not ellglble 321 15 10.5 Prehistoric Camp /Enapping Agri Crnp stubble limited Agri Ellglble Food processing e-4

Table 1 (cont.)

Site Sec Approm Cultural Site Type / Activity pre wnt M Cover tand use mtHP Mo Stre Af filf ation Land Use 2Xf.

(Acres)

Lieftations+

Pot ent ial*

• PRAIRIE /FOR[5T (DOC (n=34) 262 13 1

Illsteric 0

Agrl Grass Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible 263 7

1.4 Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agrf Crass Subplow rene disturbance Not ellglble 264*

7 2.8 Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplew rene disturbance Not ellglble--

255 7

1.3 Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplew tone disturbance Not eligible 266*

18

.1 Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Agri Cultivated Swbplow tone disturbance Not eligible Ei 268 to 1.7 Prehistoric

/ Knapping Agri trass Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible 272*

l'5

.75 Prehlsteric

/Enapping Agri Grass Sutplow tone disturbance Not eligthle 280*

10

.I Prehistoric

/Enapping Monagri Brush

$wbplow rene disturbance Not eligible 282 12 1.5 :

Prehisterft

/rnapping Agri Crop stwbble Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible 283 14

.5 Mistoric Lew Cemetery /Burtal Creetery Forest, grass A,old Not eligible 284*

14

.3 Prehlstorfe

/rnepping Monagrf Forest

$wbplow rene disturbance Not eligible Fe6 23 8

Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Monagri Brush

$wbplow rene distwebance flot ettglble -

Crop stubble 2g0*

6

.75 Prehistoric

/Knopping Monogrl trush subplow rene disterbance Not eligible 291 6

6 Prehistoric Camp /rnapping Agel Crop stubble Lletted Agri

[ligible Fabricating Processing t

/

E lable I (cont.)

Site see Approm Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Ceeer Land Use MRMP

'No Stre Affiliation Land Use Limitations *.

Potentfaf*

23CT.

[ Acres) 2g26 7

1 Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Monagrf Forest

$wbplow tone disturbance Not ellglble 2g]*

f

.11 Prehlstoric

/ Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow rene disturbance Not ellglble-2g4*

7 12.4 Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow rene disturbance hot eligible 2g5*

7

.15 Prehistoric

/ Chert procurement Managri Nothing Sebplow rene disturbance ht ellglble Knapping 2g9 I

.I Mistorfe U

Nonagri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not ellglble 304 10 3.2 Late lioodland/

Camp / Knapping Agri Crep stubble Limf ted agrl tilgtble

-a Mississipplan Hunting Food processing Fabricating 305 to

.25 Historic U

Nonsgri Forest, brush

• ubplow rene disturbance Not eligible 306*

10 1.5.

Prthistoric

/ Knapping Monagri Brush, grass subplow tone disturbance Not ettglble.

307*

10 1.2 Prettstoric

/Knappfng Monagri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not eligtbie 310*

10

.3 Prehlstoric

/ Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow rene disturbance Not ellglble 316*

13

.I Prehlsteric

/ Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not ellglble-3t?

13

.25 Historic U

Agri Grass Subplow rene disturbance Not eitgtble 318*

14 5.6 Prehlstoric

/Knapplag Agel Crop stubble Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible -

320*

I4 1.5 PrehtstorIe

/ Knapping Agri Crop stubble Sebplow rone disturbance Not eligible I

4'.

k t

Table 1 (cont.)

=

59te' Sec Appron Celteret Site Type / Activity present Ground Cover land Use esteer '

No

$1re Affiliation tend Use tieltationse

. potential **

i 2XY.

(Acres) 324*

'23

.05 prehlsteric

/Enepping Monogri Forest Subplow rene disterbence Isot eltgeble 325*

23

.05 prehlstoric

/Enopping leonegri Forest Subplow tone disterbance loot eligible L

4 32F 23

.2 Historic M

- lhmeget Brush Subplow rene disturbance Not eligtble 329 23 1

Late Archelc/

Comy- /tnapplag Agri Crop stubble tielted Agrl tilgible

' terly Woodiend (btfece menefacture)

Cutting, butchering 329 -

23

.5

.Mistoric 11 Agri

- Crest Melnteln present use itet ellgtble Q

330*

23

.2 Prehlsteric

/Enepping-leonegri Brush Malatein present use

- not eligible D155ttit0 UPLAND 04K-MICRoltY F0lttST (nel?)

'i 296.

18

.25 -

Nfstoric M

Isonogri Forest Subplow rene diste h ace not eligible 322 22 4.5

- Let' 18eedland/.

Camp /Knepping IIenegri ifeeds tielted Agri Elfglble -

e Mississipplen

_14unting 323*3 22

.15 Prehlsteric.

./Rnepping scenegri Forest

'5ebplow rene disturbence feet 'et tglble

?326*

'23

.5 Prehistoric

/ Knapping leonegri Forest Subplow rene dfsterbance Isot eitgeste -

331*

24

.3 Prehlsteric

/Knapplag Agrf Grass Sebples rene disterbence Isot eligtble 332*

- 25

'.1 Prehistorfc

/Knepping.

~

stonegri -

Forest' Subplow rene dfsterbance

- not eligible 333 25 2

historic M

leonegri Forest, gress; Subplow rene disturbence feet eligible-r r.- e w > - >,

,1 a =

,r-v w

m e

s.

u e

,.n,-

c -

n.

-.k Table 1 (cont.)

Site See Appros Cultwret 5fte Type / Activity Present Ground tower land use No 5fre Affiliation tend Use NaHP 2Xf.

(Acres)

Limitations

• Patential**

334 25 1.1 Prehlstoric thert / Chert procurement Monagrl Forest Avoid sourte Knapping tilgible 335 24/25 18.5 Prehistoric

/tnapping Agel cross subplow tone disturbance Not ettglble 336 25 i 5.25 Prehlsterft

/Enapping Agri Grass Swbplow rene disturbance Not eligible 33F 25 Historic

/ Rock pile Monagri Forest subplow rene disturbance Not ellglble 338*

25 2.4 Prehlsterte

/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow tone disturbance.

Not eligible 339 25

.25 Illsteric N

Monogri Torest Avoid Eligible i$

340*

26

.1 Prehlsteric

/tnapping Nonagri Cross Subplow rene distwrbance Not eligible 341*

26

.1 Prehistoric

/tnapping Managet Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not eligible 342 26

.I filsteric N

knagrl Weeds swbelow tone distwrbance Not eligible 343*

26

.1 Prehistoric

/tnapping Monagri Forest

$wbplow rene disturbance Not ellglble DIS $ttitD UPLAND /BOTT(M AND FOR(5T EDGE (n=16) 5 7.4 '

/'_=aoping Monagri Weeds Avoid Ellglble/Nfl forr :

submitted to 24 35

.I Niddlef/

Mound /8urialf Monagri Forest Avold MSHM tete Woodiend Elitille 214 31

.I Prehistoric

/Enapping Managri Forest.

Sobplow rene disturbance Not eligible 344*

35 t

Prehlstoric

/Enapping Managri Brush Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible

\\

\\

Tahle I (cont.)

Site Src Approm Cultural Site Type / Activity present troend Cover land 17se HRMP Mo Stre Af filletten land Use FXV.

- (Acres)

Llet ta tions +

Potential ** '

345 35 1.25 Middle Archafe?

-Cao, /Rnapping Agrt Crass t.fmited Agrl Eltglblei Drilling 3M 35 to Dotton Camp /rnapping Agri Grass Llatted Agri tilgtble thsnting, batchering 347 35

-1 Mistoric H

Monagri Brush Sobylow rene disturbance Not eligible 348 35

.51 Historic H

Agri Grass Subplow tone disturbance not ellglble 349 35 2.5 Prehistoric Ceap /Knopping Monagri Forest, brush Avold Tood processing tilgible-350 35

.1 Late lleedland Moond/9erfal Monagri Forest AveId E1Igib1h 351 35 5

Prehlsteric Camp /Inepping Agrf crass Limited Agrl tilgible Food processing 352 36 6.2 Late 18eodland

/Rnepping Agrf Crop stubble Lfatted Agri Ellgible/ ppt fe.

Food processfag Hematite processing N

pottery making Groundstone amenefacture MSHPO 353 36 8.4 Middle-tete Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble limited Agri Elfglble Archalc Food processing Late lloodland-354 36

.25 Prehistoric tem, / Knapping Monaget Brush Subplow rene distwrbente Not eligtble 355*

36 1.6 Prehtstorfc

/Fnappfag Agri Cultivated 5ebplow rene distwrbance not ellglble e

l

i

2..

h Table 1 (cont.)

$lte Sec Appros' tultural

• Site Type / Activity

~Present.

Ground Cover land Use

. IntMp :

No Stre Af filiation Land Use Llettations*

- Potential" 2X1 (Acres)

' 356 36 11 Middle-Late Mmend/Rnepping Agri-Weeds Limited aert Eligible Archele Cag food processing.

Late Hoodland Bertel Hunting

' Drilling 359 25/76/M M

terly Archele -

Cog / Knapping-Cemetery Cross. forest Avold Elleible / int late Archele Cemetery Food processing Limited Agel Middle? and Hunting Late Hoodland to N

-8 k

P i-l-

I I

s

=

The more intensively occupied sites which exhibit a more diversified range of prehistoric activities occupy the ridge tops and lower terraces where the dissected uplands meet the Missouri River floodplain. In this zone, site types range from burial mounds (23CY74) to possible villages (23Cy356).

Less intensive prehistoric occupations utilized the upland forest zone and the prairie zone in the northern half of the project area.

Sites in the prairie and prairie forest edge, currently in agricultural production, are characterized by videly and sparsely distributed scatters of vaste chert flakes. Occasionally, clusters of flakes and tool fragments mark a location where more time was spent manufacturing or maintaining stone tools.

The most common artifacts recovered at all sites were chipped stone tools and the vaste flakes f roc. their manuf acture. This is true on many

~

prehistoric archaeological sites, but it is especial 1y common in the study area where quality chert resources are plentiful.

Historic Resources Twenty nine historic components were recorded in the study area. Of these, 19 are determined to be habitation sites based on foundation remains and artifact scatters consisting of ceramics, building materials, and other domestic artifacts. The remaining 10 sites consist of I nonhabitation site (outbuilding), I dump area, 3 cemeteries, and 4-sites which were unable to be evaluated due to an insufficient amount of artif actural material and historical documentation. Sixteen of the 29 historic components are located within nonagricultural areas.

Safety regulations required early demolition and bu11 dozing at 15 sites. This activity has effected the archaeological integrity at' sites 21

23CY269, -271, -278, ~-279, -285, -297, -300, -319, -327, -329,

-347, -

348, -273, -276, and -342.

Historical documentation and archaeological evidence indicate that the historic occupation period for 19 of 29 sites ranged from 1840 to 1975 vith the majority of them, 14 (74%), clustering between 1870 to 1900. Ten sites were not assigned to a chronological period due to an insufficient amount of archaeological material and historical documentation.

Architectural Resources Twenty one architectural sites were recorded within the project area. They vary from sites with a single structure or ruin to farmsteads with a house and several outbuildings and associated structures. Only one site (21) dates exclusively to the nineteenth century, while the rest exhibit construction sequences spanning the nineteenth and twentieth centuries or are restricted exclusively to the twentieth century.

Of the 71 structures associated with these sites, 10 are houses or foundations, 59 are outbuildings or related structures, 1 is a bridge, and I is a telephone substation. Barns and sheds are the most common structures (14 each), while animal shelters number among the least common. Overall, the configuration of existing structure and ruins is typical of rural Missouri and the rural Midwest.

Evaluation of site Slenificance Prehistorie sites Conclusions regarding site significance are a major objective of all cultuir~al resources surveys and assessments, and are fully discussed 22 l

.in the. Phase l' and Phase II reports. The National Register of ' Historic

-Places-(NRMP) criteria for significance was applied to each of the sites recorded and has been' presented previously. Those sites which appear to be potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP are summarized in the following section. For site specific.information or additional.

background - inf ormation, the reader is referred to the ' Phase I report (Ray" et al.1983). While the NRHP criteria are useful for many historic and historic archlectural sites (e.g., a president's birthplace or - a battlefield), they of ten are too general to establish clearly the i

potential significance of a prehistoric archaeological-site or to' justify Phase II investigations at these sites (cf. Comptroller General 1981:23-32). The Comptroller General's report notes that "It is impractical for [the Department of the] Interior to design all--

eccompassing criteria by which archaeological sites can be centrally evaluated for state and local significance" -(1981:25-20). Thus, significance is established through a process of recommendations to the MSHPO by recognized professional archaeologists which are then' subject.

to review and evaluation by the MSHPO. In order ts initiate and facilitate this process, eight working criteria vere employed by American Resources Group, Ltd., to evaluate potential NRHP eligibility of each of the prehistoric archaeological sites recorded on the residual lands. For the purposes of this evaluation, a site was considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places if it exhibited one or more of the following.4ttributes:

1.

site appeared to offer the potential to answer specific local or regional'research problems.

23 i

2.

site exhibited culturally diagnostic artifacts suggesting successive occupations through time, but _ artif act densities were light 3.

organic staining was present,- suggesting an intensive occupation, but the site did not produce culturally diagnostic artifacts.

4.

site occupied a unique or poorly understood microenvironmental Zone.

5.

site represented a cultural period which has received little research attention.

6.

artifact densities were medium to heavy, suggesting an intensive occupation, but no culturally diagnostic artif acts were recovered.

7.

evidence suggested that the site may represent a poorly understood segment of a particular settlement system.

B.

site contained cultural material (animal bone) or artif acts (metate) which suggested it may contain specific subsistence data.

These eight working criteria are supplemental to the National h sister criteria. Specifically, the eight criteria are linked - to the National Register criteria which relate to archaeological sites: "(d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Federal Recister 1986:31115). These provide the - -

field investigator and the reviewer with specific g'uldelines with which to evaluate archaeological ' resources, justify recommendations of additional research or no further research, and to inake statements of 24

~

significance and recommendations of potential National Register eligibility.

The rationale for considering a prehistoric site nonsignificant and thus potentially noneligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places is based on the folloning interrelated factors:

1.

Site failed to meet any of the eight criteria.

2. Site produced very few artif acts suggesting a highly transient occupation. Of the 41 prehistoric sites considered potentially nonsignificant, 27 produced 5 or fever vaste flakes (35%), and 14 produced 10 waste flakes or fever (18%) and no other evidence of prehistoric occupation. Small sites producing nothing more than a few vaste flakes and lacking culturally diagnostic artif acts of f er little research potential or new data beyoad site location infermation, further, such sites are numerous in areas of abundant chert resources such as the project area.

3. Items 1 and 2 above, combined with the fact that the 23 prehistoric sites considered potentially significant constitute a sample of the known cultural and environmental diversity represented in the project area, provide the basis for recommendations of nonsignificance.

Architectural sites were evaluated and considered significant or nonsignificant using the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

Historic archaeological sites were considered nonsignificant based on the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, integrity, ten. poral considerations, and the availability of published sources of historic documentation other than the archaeological record.

25 l

Evaluating all sites using these criteria and NRHP criteria, 23 sites are considered individually significant and potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Map 3). A brief summary of each site is provided below. For more detailed discussions of these sites potentially eligible for nomination to. the NRHP, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment report (Ray et al. 1983) and the Phase II investigations at 23CY20, 23CY352, 23CY359 (Traver 1985).

s 23CY20 4

?

The site is a village or residential base camp and may be associated with either or both the large earthen mound (23CY74) and low rock mound (23CY350) located on top of the adjacent ridge system or the mound group (23CY356) on the opposite ridge 700 m to the east. Similar pottery sherds suggest 23CY20 is at least contemporaneous, if not affiliated with, 23CY352, another village site located on a similar terrace 500 m east of toe site.

An analysis of the chert sample from 23CY20 indicates an unexpected selection for locally occurring Burlington - chert, probably procured entirely f rom stream deposited sources, and supplemented by Jef ferson City chert, another locally occurring chert. The preference for Burlington chert may be due to its susceptibility and responsiveness to heat treatment. Over 50% of the Burlington artif acts at the site had been heat altered.

Based on reported materials from the site, Evans and Ives (1973:10) suggested the site is a multicomponent occupation, spanning 10,000 years including a Middle Woodland component. However, the pottery recovered 26

e-

^

l' 4%

4 3,

y g

-[

f*..-

V.h 257 D a

A.

.:.a...-

.)..----

5 *yf., u; '.

.N 89

&j.g:,,.g %:. i.l;:?.

L... y&..d

~ '

I

~..A ws..-y' y

e-t. 7..,' > l 309 e

'.?*

ji 31'l E

Ch,,**;:

p

,..a

• * *,;N ~ T. 258 :

.s w

,,m a

gt.

..~.w,>

r, t

.t ac l

k.,

j

.... ~,),

l e

304 l

f n

.,, 1 E d... 5 s

l

,,j

,s g*,

C I

M l

v..

7,,.....'M}

.v.........

p

..s

/

7 i!

/

e

&f~.i J. t.sc wso.

/

20*.q

,3

,/

h, c,

+

322 p

2 4

i 4.,

p

' ' ' ~

w ws ns i

g n

a es Coe's:1on ame Nintenance Zones

~:

i U,'

~

w' t.9 Sigetficaat Cultw st sesowrces e

,i

's:'

p.

s.

1.

• j'

.LtitN*

e

~

_v p

, \\.

ll s

w e. %.

~

.l

(

33

,.4 g

8 4.

n e sca.i., a p. ;;j~,.,

l li a.. r, a. v,i

,y..

a.

s., a. e. n

...... e s e ca, nr r,

a w

a n.a 1

f N

. = a 6 e.

l i

/

[

- -3...r

,t em ve i

3

s.. t,

.i t,w n w.

,7

. g

a. at.e. t.o-n.e 5+

hm ee l';

s gg3

..s a ;:,j r

D.=ve a-(=

(

4

(

g e pen, w.

p r.

y ~ 3 a,,

y y,; e,er.ti e.. m atenac. 2. ei,,,

1;.

j O Preh18torie drCP.aeological $110

.);

- gi

. 3, O miseric **sueolosical site i

ass

'JM

• -r 352 lite 4.e-sees D

t '.....

""* g,,

.s.-

Prtcesec by 23 CY M9

~4

,,,se g

K

\\

\\

• '/

)

% --m.a..m 27

- a.ea, -,

4

=4-j

{

f rom the site, a Scallorn arrow point, and other possible Woodland

-l i

artifacts (Evans'and Ives 1979a:19) indicate that the major occupation j

was probably Late Foodland (1500-1000 B.P. ). The site's topographic setting indicates a high potential for buried cultural horizons (Map 2).

Phase II testing conducted in 1985 varified the NRHP significance -of this site (Traver 1985).

23CY14 The site is apparently a burial mound and is probably representative of the Boone Phase in central Missouri. The setting high on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and the mounds are sometines constructed entirely of earth -(Chipman 1980:112). This probable mortuary site may be associated with the village site (23CY20) located on a terrace 600 m to the east. The Boone Phase is largely confined within the Lover Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman 1980:121; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly affiliated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; tanny 1964:158) which ranges f rom 1500-1000 B.P.

23CY256 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The Big Sandy Notched point suggests a data range from 7000-5000 B.P.

(Chapman 1975:242). Thus, the site is affi.11ated with the Middle Archaic period.

23CY257 The, site is a field camp and knapping station with little evidence of long-term habitation. The high percentage (84.6%) of flakes greater 2

than 2 cm suggests an initial lithic reduction station, and the almost 28

exclusivs usa of Burlington chert indicates proen.ement of nearby chert resources. The tool types suggest fabricating and processing activities.

Site 23CY257 was revisited in May of 1982. A surf ace inspection of the main portion of the site revealed a moderate scatter of predominantly large secondary decortication flakes concentrated at the head of a ravine. Also located were three large bifaces, one large preform, one mano, and a probable platform preparation abrader; only the preform and the platform preparation abrader were collected. It was noted that many of the secondary decortication flakes and one of the large bif aces were knapped f rom stream deposited chert.

The high percentage of secondary decortication flakes, the relatively high number of bifaces (6 total) for a small field camp, the preform, and the platform preparation abrader all suggest the site was used primarily for initial reduction and biface manufacture. The fact that the majority of artifacts with cortex surfaces was knapped from stream deposited nodules suggests that most of the chert probably was procured from the nearby ravine and transported to the top of the ridge for reduction. The large preform, which was not heat treated, exhibits several attributes that are suggestive of an Etley Stemmed projectile point / knife (Chapman 1975:246) including the large form (14 cm in length), blade shape, and the preliminary shaping of the haf ting element. Because of this Etley-like projectile point / knife, a Late Archaic af filiation has been assigned to the site. The probable platform ~ preparation (or antler flaker abrader) is a sandstone slab, 12 x 18 cm, and exhibits two parallel, slightly sinuous grooves on one surface.

29

23CY267 The site is a small field camp and knapping station with no evidence of substantial habitation. Analysis of the chert sample from 23CY267 indicates an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposits; however, the two Jefferson City flakes indicate transportation of that chert from at leastL1.5 km distant. A fluted Clovis projectile point indicates a Paleo-Indian occupation ca. 12,000 B.P.

23CY291 The site is a small field camp with three discrete knapping stations. The relatively high percentage (63.M) of fla1.es greater than 2

2 cm indicates initial reduction lithic workshops. The artifactual data also indicate an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, procured from both stream deposited and residual sources; however, the Jefferson City flake indicates transportation of t$at chert from approximately 1.8 km distant. The tool types suggest fabricating and l

precessing activities. Cultural affiliation is unknovn.

23CY303 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The projectile-point base and serrated biface midsection suggest' activities related to hunting and butchering, and the pitter / hammer / grinding stone indicates plant processing activities. The Rice Lanceolate component suggested by the point base and serrated midsection is affiliated with the Earl ~y ~~

Arch aic period (9000-7000 B.P.) and possibly contiilues into the Middle Archaic (Chapman 1975:253i.'

ee G

30

23CY304 The site appears to be a seasonal field camp and knapping station The high percentage (69.7%) of flakes greater than 2 cm2 indicates initial lithic reduction; two secondary decortication flakes 'actually had diameters of 16 cm. Other activities suggested ~by ~ the tool types include hunting and butchering, f abricating and processing, and. plant food preparation.

Analysis of the chert sample from 23CY304 indicates a predominant utilization of Burlington chert, mostly procured from the nearby creek bed. A small triangular arrow point recovered at the site is affiliated with the Late Woodland / Mississippi period which ranges from 1200-500 i

B.P. in the study area.

23CY309 The site appears to represent a seasonal or reoccupied field camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert sample from 23CY309 indicates a predominant use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposited sources. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering.

The Etiey Stemmed projectile point / knife is affiliated with. the Late Archaic period (5000-3000 B.P.) and is a diagnostic artifact of the Booth assemblage and Cuivre River ceremonial complex in northeast Missouri (Chapman 1975:246).

23CY314 The site is probably a small field camp and knapping station with one and possibly two features visible on the surface. The feature (s) may be a simple fire hearth (s) or possibly chert heat treatment pit (s). The 31

heat-altered chert was exclusively Burlington chert probably procured from the nearby creek. Cultural affiliation is Inknown.

23CY321 The site is a small field camp and knapping station with evidence of plant food processing activities. Based on available data, chert procurement was predouinantly from the closer Burlington sources.

However, one-third of the artifacts were made from Jefferson City chert located at least twice as far away. Cultural affiliation is unknown.

23CY322 6

The site is a small field camp and knapping st% tion with no Gridence of substantial habitation. The relatively M;h percentage of secondary decortication flakes and flakes in general with dimensions greater than 2 cm2 (61.3%) indicates initial lithic. reduction. A triangular arrow point suggests the site was also used as a hunting camp during the Late Woodland / Mississippian period ca. 1200-500 B.P.

Analysis of the limited chert sample f rom 23CY322 indicates a preference for Durlfrgton chert. Both stream deposited and residual chert sources vere utilized.

23CY328 The site is a rmall ff *1d camp and knapping station' lacking evidence of permanent habitation. The artifactual evidence indicates bifacial tool manuf acturing, probably for cutting and butchering purposes. A corner-notched, hafted tool is probably affiliated with the Late Archaic /Early koodland transition period, which ranges from 4000-2500 3.P. in the study area.

32

A l

I 23CY334 The site is a chert procurement and primary reduction -knapping station with no evidence of habitation. The presence of 53 cores, the near absence of worked / utilized artifacts, the fact that' 67.5% of the flakes recovered were decortication flakes, and that 85.9% were greater than 2 cm2 are all consistent with what would be expected at an initial reduction lithic workshop. Quarrying was unnecessary at the site since.

the residual chert readily outcrops on the southwest exposure of the ridge. Thermal pretreatment was also unnecessary due to the inherent fine-grained nature of the chert. The artif actual evidence supports a nearly exclusive use of this residual Jef f erson City chert source.

Cultural affiliation is unknovn.

23CY345 t

The site is. small field camp and knapping station. The haf ted drill indicates activities such as stone, bone and/or vood boring, and the chert analysis indicates a heavy reliance on Burlington and,

thus, stream deposited chert resources. Suggested cultural affiliation for the site based on the hafted drill is Middle Archaic (7000-5000 B.P.).

23CY346 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. A chert analysis.of the artif acts from 23Cy346 indicates a selection - for and predominant utilization of Burlington chert, probably-procured entirely from stream deposited sources, over readily ' available residual / '

-redeposited Jefferson City chert. The f act that 74% of the flakes collected were less than 2 cm2 suggests primary reduction at the chert.

sources (creek beds) and tertiary reduction of finishing / resharpening on the site. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by tool types 33

include hunting and butchering. The three Callavay chert flakes, all found in one shovel test, indicate some use, although minimal, of this scarce chert known to occur 6.5 km away, j

A Dalton ' point recovered at the site represents the transitional

'I

{

period between Paleo-Indian and Archaic times or Late Paleo/Early Archaic period, ca. 10,600-9000 B.P.

(Chapman 1975:96; Goodyear 1982).

Dalton points have been found in situ in the earliest levels of nearby Arnold Research Cave and Graham Cave (Chapman 1975:245).

23CY349 t

The site is probably a reoccupied camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities.

The analysis of the chert i

sample from 23CY349 indicates a heavy reliance on or preference for Burlington chert, probably procured from local redeposited sources, over readily available residual or stream deposited Jefferson City chert.

This small babitation site may be associated or affiliated with 23Cy74, a Middle or Late Woodland mound located at the southern end of the site.

f 1

1 23CY350 This small rock feature is probably a mortuary mound site cnd may represent a Boone Phase mound. A few vaste flakes suggests. that flint 1

knapping also was carried on in the site vicinity. The setting high on a

{

bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the l

location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964 :137), - and-burials do

i sometimes occur under stone cairns (Denny 1964:141). The Boone Phase is

)

largely ' confined.vithin the lover Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman-1980:112; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly affiliated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:158).

34 t

23CY351 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities. There is also-some evidence of a possible hearth on site. Analysis of the chert artifacts from 23CY351 indicates a predominant use of and pteference for Burlington chert, probably procured entirely fro; redeposited sources, over readily

~

avai1able residual or stream deposited Jefferson City chert. Most of the limited amount of Jefferson City chert that was used probably came from residual sources. One-fourth of the Burlington artifacts were thermally altered, whereas only two flakes knapped from Jefferson City. chert had been heat treated. The fact that three-quarters of the flakes were less than 2 cm2 suggests primary reduction at the chert sources and tertiary reduction or finishing / resharpening on the site. Cultural affiliation is

'anknoVn.

23CY352 The site is a village or residential base camp and is probably associated with the mound group (23CY356) atop the adjacent ridge.

Similar pottery sherds suggest 23CY352 is at least contemporaneous if not affiliated with 23CY20, another village site located on a similar terrace 500 m to the vest. Activities suggested by the tool-types and debitage include secondary, but predominantly tertiary, flint knapping and tool maintenance, the manufacture of groundstone tools, butchering,._

drilling, hematite processing, plant food processing, and pottery making and food preparation / storage.

As evidenced by the sand, grit, and dolomite tempered pottery,-the major component at 23CY352 is probably affiliated with the Late Woodland period and may be associated with the Bo.one Phase of, central and east-35

central Missouri; suggested dates range from 1500-1000 B.p. Both Boone Plain and Moreau or Boone Cord Marked pottery types are identified as Boone Phase in the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:276-277, 288-289; Denny 1964:96-99, 72-75), and Darnell or Graham Cord Marked and Graham Plain pottery types probably are associated with Late Woodland peoples (Chapman 1980:280-281). 1.1ffour pottery types are found primarily in the U

Lover Missouri Valley II Locality (Chapman 1980:276, 280-281, 289). The site's location on an alluvial terrace suggests a high potential for buried cultural deposits.

Phase II testing produced two radiocarbon dates, A.D. 470 1 140 and A.D. 8 3 0 + 100 and verified Middle Woodland and Late Woodland occupations, the latter represented by artif acts diagnostic of Maramec Spring Phase, Boone Phase, and Moreau subphase (Traver 1985). This site is eligible for nomination to the.VRHP.

23CY353 The site is probably a reoccupied seasonal camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert artif acts f rom 23CY353 indicater a predominant utilization of Burlington chert (71%), probably' procured entirely from stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role.(29%)

for Jefferson City chert. Even among the Jefferson City chert: that was used, there was a tendency to procure it from nearby stream -deposited

- sources rather than from residual sources.

Examination of the debitage suggests primacy', secondary,.and' tertiary reduction on the-site. Activities other than flint knapping.

suggested by tool types include hunting and butchering, hide. processing, and plant food preparationIprocessing. The incidence of heat treatment-36 yy

' +,

r. m A

~

among Burlington chert tools was very high at this site -- 68% of.the tools are thermally altered as compared to 23% of the debitage.

The diagnostic tools found at 23Cy353 indicate a multicomponent site with predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. Although possibly inhabited during the Early Archaic period, the major components suggested by the surf ace collection tentatively have been 'af filiated with the Middle to Late Archaic (7000-2500 B.P.) and Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) periods. The site's terrace setting provides the potential for buried cultural deposits.

13CY356 The sitt is a seasonal camp and knapping station with a probable mortuary mound complex located on the south end of the site. Five lov earthen mounds were located, recorded, and tested with a soil probe.

Analysis of the chert artifacts from 23Cy356 indicates an unexpected pref erence for Burlington chert, probably procured entirely f rom stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role for nearby Jefferson City chert.

Other activities suggested by the tool types and debitage include hunting and butchering, drilling, plant food processing, and human burial. Twenty two bitacial thinning flakes indicate a f air amount of bif ace manuf acture/ maintenance, and at least three pieces of fire-cracked rock suggest the presence of a hearth on-the site.

The diagnostic artifacts found at 23CY356 indicate a multicomponent site _vith predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. The two Big Sandy Notched points located by the survey are associated with the Middle Archaic period ca. 7000-5000 B.P. (Chapman 1975:242), and the two 37

2 Big Sandy-like points represent styles which may have persisted into the Late Archaic period.

The major component at 23Cy356 is affiliated with the Late Woodland period (15000-1000 B.P.) and may represent a manifestation of the Boone Phase in east-central Missouri. The setting high on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and the mounds are sometimes constructed entirely of earth (Chapman 1980:112). The grit-tempered sherd.(Graham Plain) found on mound A is similar to Late Woodland pottery found at Graham Cave and Arnold Research Cave (Chapman 1980:121). In addition, the Rice Side Notched, Steuben Expanded Stemmed, and Scallorn Corner Notched projectile points found on the site are all characteristic of Late Woodland Boone Phase (Chapman 1980:115). This Late Woodland component is probably associated with the village or residential base camp (23CY352) located on the adjacent terrace directly belov or vest of the ridge and 23CY356.

23CY359 from the small (selective) amount of material collected during the preliminary reconnaissance, it is evident that the site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. Although'the small selective sample is biared toward tools, there was no bias in collecting artifact chert types. A chert analysis indicates that there may have been a preference for making ' tools out of Burlington chert since all of the projectile points and all but one biface were knapped from this fossiliferous chert. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering and plant food processing.

j 38 I

The diagnostic artif acts indicate the site is multicomponent with predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. The side-notched point tentatively identified as Graham Cave Notched suggests the site may have been occupied during the Early Archaic (10,000-7000 B.P.) period (Chapman 1975:249) and the Big Sandy-like point probably representing the Middle to Late Archaic period (7000-3000 B.P.). The expanding stemmed Steuben point is restricted to the Middle' Woodland and Late Woodland periods (Chapman 1980:313), and the Scallorn Corner Notched arrov point is a Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) point type (Chapman 1975:312).

Phase II testing confirmed the f unction and multiple Archaic occupations at this site (Traver 1985). The site is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Sienificant Historic Archaeolocical Sites As indicated earlier, many of the former homes and f armsteads in the study area vere razed and impacted by subsequent clearing. As a result, archaeological integrity is lacking at most of the sites; however, two sites appear to be potentially significant and offer some potential for further archaeological and historical research.

Site 23Cy261 is an undisturbed homestead in the upland prairie zone. The artif act assemblage from the site ranges f rom ca. 1840-1929.

The site is depleted on early maps in 1876, 1897, and 1919. This.

~ evidence indicates some continuity from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. This was a period'of rapid change in central Missouri, and the apparent undisturbed nature of the deposits may of f er an opportunity to study this change in the archaeological record.

39

Site 23CY339 is a log structure, partially in ruin, located in the rugged forest zone in the southern part of the study area (Map 2).

The site's unique location on a rocky hillside poses interesting historical research questions.

I Historical Architectural sites When measured against the criteria of the National Register of 1

Historic Places, the historic architectural sites and features do not appear to represent a significant level of innovation, uniqueness, artistry. While they may be potential candidates for preservation, they or I

are best categorized as standard examples of their respective building types. For more detailed information on the architectural resources, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey report (Ray et al. 1983).

Potential Adverse Impacts Protecting and preserving cultural resources from a variety of destructive activities stimulated by an expanding society is fundamental to' cultural resources management. The recognition over 85 years ago that archaeological and historical sites were being' destroyed and would continue to be destroyed provided the impetus for the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Today, two types of adverse impacts, direct and indirect, are recognized (Schiffer and House 1975). Direct impacts are j

usually major land altering activities carried out in conjunction with road, reservoir,

• pipeline, stock pond, and landfill construction, to mention just a few. The effect of such activities on fragile, non-renewable _ cultural resources is obvious ~ and of ten decisive.There are j

direct. impaet's that are much less destructiv'e ' than-these major 40 i

)

a_---

- ]

construction activities. Cultivation related to agricultural production, logging activities, trenches for underground telephone cables, trenches for small diameter water lines, camp grounds, and development of picnic i

areas are examples of direct impact which are less destructive than the impacts from major construction. Each category of direct impact may have i

related indirect impacts. For example, various silvicultural harvesting techniques may have varying degrees of adverse effects to cultural however, a new road constructed to the pr,oposed logging area resources:

l vould be f ar more destructive to cultural resources than the actual t

i timber harvest. Or, a 100-acre reservoir constructed in a ravine which contains no archaeological sites may have a variety of construction

.i related indirect impacts (e.g., borrow areas used for dam fill) which may effect other archaeological sites. The construction of equestrian or i

hiking trails on the residual lands would have little or no direct adverse impacts to cultural resources, yet, potential indirect adverse impacts could be high due to increased public exposure to archaeological sites. For example, a hiking trail near the prehistoric mound (23Cy74, l

Map 2) would increase the opportunities for vandalism, malicious 1

looting, or uninformed collecting. Some examples of potential indirect impacts might include increased public usage of all recreational f acilities on the residual lands, soll erosion on archaeological sites, and timber harvesting.

~

~

Examination of these potential impacts serves to point out the need for a cultural resources management plan and the usefulness of a management plan as a short and long range planning tool, both for Union Electric company and the Missouri Department of Conservation. Generally,

~

41

the current land use management plan which emphasizes vildlife management and recreation is compatible with the needs of cultural resources management. Potential adverse impacts f rom cultivation, erosion, trail construction, picnic grounds, silviculture, etc., are not as destructive as some other types of activities. Also, agricultural crop rotation niy be altered easily to accommodate archaeological site preservation without compromising the requirement of wildlife food and habitat production. For example, limited agricultural activities could occur at some of the potentially significant archaeological sites without adverse effects to the site. The various types of land use restrictions and limitations vill be central to the specific management recommendations.

Management Recommandations and Guidelines The key management elements with regard to the prehistoric and historic archaeological sites which vill be of primary concern te Union i

Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation vill be current land use, land use limitations, and the statement of potential National Register eligibility.

The -four primary types of land use on the residual lands are cemeteries, agricultural, nonagricultural, and operation and maintenance of the power plant. Cemeteries consist mostly of small f amily plots, long abandoned and overgrown with brush and weeds. Agricultural use includes row crop, pasture, and related agricu),tural land usage.

Nonagricultural use consists. of forest, brush, and veeds. The lam use and ground cover notations (Table 1) reflect conditions at the time'of survey in the fall and vint'er of 1981.

42

9 For management purposes, land use recommendations consist of three types of limitations: (1) subplov zone disturbance, (2) avoid, and (3) limited agriculture (Table 1). A land use limitation of "subplow zone" is recommended at all sites which are not considered potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register but will be protected by the recommendations in this management plan. Avoidance requires that a si'te's surf ace and subsurface integrity be maintained by prohibiting land altering activities. All potentially eligible sites which are in forest vegetation and all historic cemeteries are to be avoided.

Current state cultural resources management guidelines recommend Phase II testing of potentially eligible sites identified during the Phase I survey to further evaluate National Register eligibility (Welchman 19'19). Three potentially eligible sites (23CY20, 23CY352, 23CY359) are located in an area of potential _ environmental impact related to the operation and maintenance of the plant or associated iacilities. Phase II testing was conducted at the three sites in 1985 by American Resources Group (Traver 1985). The results of these investigations indicated that all three sites were eligible for nomination to the NRHP. National Register forms were completed for the sites and submitted to MSHPO following completion of the assessments' (Traver 1985:133). Sites 23CY3;9 :Ld 23C7359 are located within transmission line rights-of-way and 23CY20 in the area of the railroad spur, " Areas of Potential Effects of the Underteking", as defined in 36CFR800.2. Current operations and maintenance activities in the vicinity of the three sites is as follows:

43 I

I

4 Table 2 Manageernt peroaneadations for Potentially Significant Sites site

$1re Location Cultural Ground Cover tend tise Culturel Resources Management No (Acres)

Affiliation timitettons' Reconvaenda t t ens

• 2XY-20 7.4 SEl. W1. 5WI. 515' Middle Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Nie. It testing completed 74

.1 SWI. rfWI 5El. 535 Middle-tate Woodland forest Avoid Preserve. Phase 11 If threatened Parlal sound 256 5.9 MEl. SEl. Stl 511 Middle Archaic Crep timited Agri Preserve. Phase If If threatened 257 14.8 SEl. W I. 5tl. Si tale Archaic Brush, crop timited Agri Preserve. Phase Il if threatened 267 8.2 MWI. SW1. 5WI. 52 Paleo-Indian Crep Limited Agel Preserve. Phase II If threatened g

291 6.0 WI WI. SWI thknown Crep timited Agel Preserve. Phase Il if threatened NEl. NEl. SEl. 56 303 14.8 SEl. 5tl. 510 thknown Crep timited Agri Preserve. Pluse II If threatened 304 3.2 WI. WI. SEl. 510 Late Woodland Crop timited Agri Preserve. Phase II ff threatened Mississipplan 30, 13.6 El. NWI. NEl. 510 Late Archale trop tielted Agel Preserve. Phase II if threatened 314

.25 Ntt. NEl. NEl. 511 tinknown Crep timited Agri Preserve. Phe=e II If threatened 321 10.5 Mil. SW1. NEl. 515 tinknown trop timited Agri Preserve. Phase Il if threatened 322 4.5

$W1. NEl. NEI. 522 tote Woodland Weeds

. Limited Agel Preserve. Phase II If threatened Mississipplen 328 1.6 WI. SWI. 5tl. 523 tate Archalc?

Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase il if threatened

• Limited Agelculture-see F8T' 38 Avold-seg gege 3g

• 0&H-operetten and maintenance e

\\

Table 2 (cont. )

Site

$1re Location Cultural Ground Em er tsad Use No (Acres)

AfIlliation 23CY.

Limitations

• Cultural Resevrces Management Recomenda tions

• 334 1.1

11. W1. NEl. 525 LMnown Forest Arold Preserve. Phase It if threatened 345 1.25 St. 5El. MI Middle Archaic Crass MER. NEl. $El.135 Limited Agri Preserve. Phase il if threatened 346 10.0 Mt. W1. 5El Early Arthalc 9 ass SEl. SW1. NEl. 535 Dalton Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 ff threatened 341 2.5 VI, W 1. SE) 135 Late Woodland Forest Avoid 350

.1 SWI, WI. SEl. 535 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase 11 if threater.e4 Burial sound?

Preserve. Phase !! If threatened 4

351 5.0.

WI. MEl 5El thinown Crass tielted Agri a

MEl.. NEl. SEl. 335 vs 352 6.2 WI. KI. SWI

' Middle and late.

Preserve. Phase If If threatened trop NEl. WI. 5W1. 536 Woodland Limited Agri Pres'erve. Phase !! testing completed 353 3.4 El. NE1. W1. 536 Middle and Late trop Limited Agri 1985, NR forms submitted to M5HPO Archaic Preserve. Phase Il if threatened 356 11.0 NI. KI. $wl Middle Archaic Weeds SEl.,5El. W1. 536 Late Woodland Limited Agri Preserve. Phase It if threatened 359 30.0 Wl W1. 536 Middle Archalc Crass Late Woodland Close opper road to Preserve, Phase il testing completed prevent erosion; Avoid 1985, NR forms subeltted to M5HPO 261 1.0 NEl. NEl. W1. 513 Historic Crass Limited Agri

• -Phase il eveltation if threatened 331 1.0 SEl. SEl. WI. 525 Mistoric Forest Avald Phase 11 evaluation if threatened 6e

The railroad spur is no longer in use and has been abandoned in place. Therefore, no further operational or maintenance activities vill take place in the area. of 23CY20. This site has been fenced and any activity within the fence, including vehicular traf fic (other than routine grass maintenance), is prohibited.

Activities associated with saintenance and repair operations on transmission f acilities vill be those associated with vehicular movements, when required, along access roads and rights-of-way. No earthmoving work is required. Herbicides vill be applied, as necessary, to maintain rights-of-way and trees vill be trimmed to maintain the required line clearance. Vegetation growth vill be controlled on a peri' odic basis using a standard f arm tractor with a bush bog in tov.

Vegetation is normally cut above the ground surface with no plowing or excavation required. No other maintenance activities are anticipated.

In accordance with Callaway Plant written procedures, any'new construction or change in procedures requires that the following two questions be answered:

1.

Will there be a physical change to site grounds or land layout?

2.

Will there be any excavation on UE property outside of owner controlled area fence?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then a Final Environmental Evaluation must be performed by Radiological Engineering.

This includes a full evaluation of cultural resources impacts. If it is determined that any cultural resources site could be impacted, then the new constructjon or procedure vill be altered to avoid the effect or the h1C and SHPO vill be contacted for consultation prior to implementation of the activity or procedure.

In addition to the above plant procedural safeguards, the Missouri Denartment of Conservation (DOC) has been notified that activities such as fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation vill be planned to minimize opportunities for vandalism, malicious looting, or uninformed collecting by not directing attention to potentially significant cultural resources. Doc is required to submit all plans for any land disturbing activities (including parking lots, roads, and any new significant public attractions) to Radiological Engineering for review prior to iLplementation.

It is the opinion of the writer that the operations and maintenance activities described above do not constitute any effect to sites

~

~

23CY20, 23CY352' and 23CY359.

46

The other 22 sites identiflod as potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places vill be protected from adverse impact by placing a conservative protection boundary zone around each site. The protection boundary will range from 50 m to 100 m depending upon site specific circumstances._For example, at many sites, the boundary stakes are set along the f ence line even though the artifact distribution is well out in the field.

Limited agriculture can continue at potentially significant sites presently being used for agricultural purposes. Limited agricultural activity with reference to potentially significant ar'chaeological sites permits shallow discing to allow the sowing of grass seed. The rationale for this recommendation is twofold. First, these sites are often surrounded by major row crop areas and to allow brush and f orest vegetation to return could be inconvenient to other agricultural activities. Second, the sites could be used for hay production and grazing without adverse effects to the cultural resources.

Final management considerations and objectives are: to preserve the potentially significant archaeological sites in place, provide-recommendations for nonsignificant resources, and provide specific guidelines for potentially significant archaeological sites for Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation.

The following guidelines vill insure site preservation and f acilitate the management objectives of 11nion Electric Company.

To insure the identification' and preservation of all prehistoric

~'

archaeological sites and these sites potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP, metal reinforcing rod stakes have been placed at the corners of all sites along field edges. Boundaries which f all within 4 *1 N

+

i

agricultural fields (pastures) are marked with wooden lath to avoid damaging f arm machinery. All stake tops are painted and flagged. The boundaries are placed approximately 50 m to 100 m beyond site limits to provide a proper buffer zone.

In addition, all archaeological sites are identified with an aluminum plate af fixed to a reinforcing rod upon which is painted the Archaeological Survey of Missouri site number (Figure 1). These site numbers are keyed to confidential site location maps and field notes describing the marker and site locations. A map with accompanying notes vill be on file at the Environmental Services Department of Union Electric Company.

1.

Land altering activities are prohibited at all potentially significant archaeological sites (Table 1). These activities include, but are not limited to, road construction, water line excavation, electrical and telephone line excavations, transmission line construction, pond and reservoir construction, building construction, electrical transmission substation construction, cultivation (deep ploving or chisel ploving), and silviculture.

2.

Limited cultivation in the form of shallov discing is permissible in order to maintain grass cover on those sites where limited agriculture is recommended (Table 2),

3.

Coordination with the Environmental Eervices Department of Union Electric Company should occur well in advance of any land use-activities outside those found in Table 1 whic'h may affect the potentially significant sites. The Environmental Services Department 48

.~ - -. -

.. ' i D

.em 22 i

at an. sew. acer m

F

?

3 1

Figure 1.

Site Identification Marker vill insure identification of site boundaries, will establish buffer zones, and contact other regulatory agencies when appropriate.

4.

Phase II testing for the purpose of 'f urther evaluating significance vill not occur until a potentially significant site 'is threatened by adverse impacts (Table 2).

5.

.The architectural sites on the residual lands are not eligible-f or. nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and are not subject to land use limitations.

6.

There is the remote possibility that the. prehistoric and historic archaeological sites considered noneligible for nomination to the National Register may contain useful information. Current ' land use

.(ie.. farming) may occur at;these sites but land altering activities are

' permitted only after consultation with~the proper authorities.-

7.

For planning and ~ management purposes, 'a ' USGS topographic map I

~

precisely' locates all the cultura1' resources on the residual 1 ands. If i

a 49

.c c-

.-..L--

there is any question regarding the exact location of a site, the Environmental Services Department shoudl be contacted.

8.

There is the possibility that sites 23CY20, 23CY352, and 23Cy353 contain buried cultural occupations. The Environmental Services Department should be aware of this, and future research plans should account for these buried deposits.

9.

Although a very intensive survey was conducted, there is the possibility that undiscovered resources may be present. If artifacts or cultural features are encountered during construction projects, supervisors vill be instructed to notify the Environmental Services Department immediately.

The Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment and the Phase II testing of three sites in the operations and maintenance zone of the callavay residual lands along with the several other survey and assessments of the direct impact zones adequately meet the letter and spirit of federal laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources.

Further, responsible use of this management plan vill insure the continued preservation of the potentially significant archaeological resources into the future.

50

REFERENCES Chapman, Carl H.

1975 The Archaeoloav of Missouri. I..,.ersity of Missouri Press, Columbia.

1980 The Archaeolocy of Missouri, II. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

Comptroller General of the United States 1981 Are Agencies Doing Enough or Too Much for Archaeological Preservation? Guidance Needed. Report to the Chairman Committe of Interior and Insular Affairs, House of y

Representatives. U.S. Government Accounting Office Report CED-81-61. Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Denny Sidney G.

1964 A_Re-Evaluation of the Boone Pocus: A Late Woodland Manifestation in Central Missouri Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri.

Evans, David R.

1975 Proposal for Mitigation of Impact on Archaeological Site 23Cy20. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

1979 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Bland Substation Site, Gasconade County, Missouri Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

Evans, David R., and David J. Ives n.d.

Archaeological Site 23Cy20: Recommendations. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

1973 Initial Archaeoloolcal Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Near Reform Callavay County, Missouri. Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia.

1978 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Company 345KV Transmission Line Right-Of-Way,

~

Callaway and Montgomery Counties, Missouri. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 1979a 23CY20 The Preservation Plan For An Archaeolocical Site.

Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia.

1979b A cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Company 345KV Transmission Line Right-Of-Way, 51

l Gasconade and Osage Counties, Missouri. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

Federal Register 1966 Rules and Regulations 51F.R.31115.

Goodyear, Albert C.

1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Anticulty 47(2):382-395.

King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg 1977 Anthropolooy on Historic Preservation, Caring for Culture's Clutter. Academic Press, New York.

McNerney, Michael J.

1978 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Shavnee National Forest. Cultural Resources Management Studies #27.

Fischer-Stein Associates, Carbondale, Illinois.

1982 Cultural Resources Assessment of Proposed Borrow Pit Nos.

7 and 8, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site. Ms. on file, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois.

Missouri Department of Conservation 1976 A Plan of Manacement for the Residual Lands of the Union Electric Company Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared in cooperation with Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

Ray, Jack H., Michael J. McNerney, Edward Morin, R. Gail White, and Kurt R. Moore 1983 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment on Residual Lands at Union Electric Company's Nuclear Power Plant, callavay County, Missouri. Cultural Resources Management Report #52. American Resources Group, Ltd.,

Carbondale, Illinois.

Schiffer, Michael B., and John H. House (assemblers) 1975 The Cache River Archaeolocical Project: An Experiment in Contract Archaeoloov. Research Series #8 Arkansas Archaeological Gurvey, Jonesboro..

Traver, Jerome D.

1985 Phase II Cultural Resource Testino and Assessment _gf Sites 23CY-20, 23CY-352 and 23CY-359 at Union Electric Company's Callaway Nuclear Power Plant, Callavay County.

)

wissouri. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 96, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois.

Tucker, Patrick M., and Edward M..Morin 1981a A Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of the-

. Sanitary Landfill Area, Callavay Nuclear Power Plant 52

o l

site, Callavay County, Missouri. Cultural Resources 6

Managment Report No. 50, American Resources Group, Ltd.,

Carbondale, Illinois.

1981b A Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of the Emeroency Operational Facility, callava Nuclear Power i

Plant Site, callaway County, Missourt. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 51, American Resources Group, Ltd.,

Carbondale, Illinois.

Weston, Donald E., and Michael S. Weichman (editors)

- 1987 Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri. Prepared for Division of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Missouri Department of. Natural Resources, under the direction of Historic Kansas City Foundation, by Archaeological Associates and Environmental Systems Analysis.

Y

=

53

~.

1901 Cwu:eu kenue rest offee sa res ENCLOSURE 3 St icua. M.ssouri 63166 314 554 2650 6

{. INION Etscriac uarch 29, 199a s1,"s"'e'c''"'

v E

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Mail Stop P1-137 Washington, D.C.

20555 Gentlemen:

ULNRC-29 86 DOCKET NUMBER 50-483 CALLAWAY PLANT CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

References:

1)

ULNRC-2566 dated 2/21/92 2)

ULNRC-2620 dated 4/16/92 Reference 1 transmitted our request for a revision to the Callaway Operating License concerning cultural resources sections of Appendix B.

The following represents Union Electric's continuing commitment to protect cultural resources on Union Flectric property surrounding Callaway Plant.

There are twenty-five cultural resources sites which are considered potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places located on Union Electric property.

While only three of these sites are located within the " area of potential effects" of the

" undertaking" (i.e.,

operation and maintenance of the plant) as defined by 36 CFR 800.2, all of the sites are protecteel through implementation of our Management Plan.

A Cultural Resources Manacement Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric ComDany Callaway Planti, dated March, 1992 (as transmitted by Reference 2), will continue to be used as a basis for compliance with 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 and 36 CFR 800.11 for treatment of the twenty-five sites.

If a revision to this Management Plan, which changes the essence'of the Plan, is contemplated by Union Electric, the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be notified for consultation prior to implementation of said revision.

Copies of any changes will be provided to each agency, f&{k 0h-h

x U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 ULNRC - 2986 If it is determined that any of the twenty-five cultural resources sites could be impacted by.any new construction or procedure, the new construction or procedure will be altered to avoid the effect or the NRC and SHPO will be contacted for consultation prior to implementation.

In addition, should Union Electric become aware of vandalism,. malicious looting, or uninformed collecting at any of the twenty-five sites,.

the SHPO will be promptly notified.

There is the remote possibility that other cultural resources sites identified in the Management Plan not considered cligible for nomination to the National Register may contain useful information.

While current land uses are permitted at these sites, any'new construction will be permitted only after consultation with the SHPO.

If you have any questions regarding this-letter, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

/

J/

Donald F.

Schnell NGS/kea L

e

STATE OF MISSOURI

)

)

SS CITY OF ST. LOUIS

)

Donald F. Schnell, of lawful age, being.first duly sworn

-upon oath says that he is Senior Vice President-Nuclear and an officer of Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof; that he has executed the same for and on behalf of said company with full power and authority.to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

By

/)]%sy

_/

Fonald F.' 'Sclinell Senior Vice President Nuclear i

l SUBS,CJIBED and swcrn to before me this o29 day of

//bett/s a 1994, j

'8

[

t I'l I I' BAPSARA J P F i

NOTARY PUBUC-STATE OF MISSOURl

,g,,ffg MY COMMIS$10N EXPIRES APRIL 22, 1997, ST. LOUIS COUNTY II 6.

s

)

cc:

T. A.

Baxter, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

{

2300 H.

Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20037 M.

H.

Fletcher j

CFA, Inc.

18225-A Flower Hill Way Gaithersburg, MD 20879-5334 L. Robert Greger Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Bruce Bartlett Callaway Resident Office U.S.

Regulatory Commission RR#1 Steedman, MO 65077 L. R. Wharton (2)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E21 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O.

Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Ron Kucera Department of Natural Resources P.O.

Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 David Shorr Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O.

Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102