ML20069K996
| ML20069K996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1982 |
| From: | Mcnerney M AMERICAN RESOURCES GROUP, LTD. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069K995 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211160322 | |
| Download: ML20069K996 (37) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:FINAL DRAFT REPORT A Cuttural Resources Management Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric Company CalIaway Nucl ear Power PIant Callaway County, Missouri Prepared for Union Electric Company By American Resources Group, Ltd. Carbondale, Illinois Principal Investigator and Author Michael J. McNerney October 1982 8211160322 821108 PDR ADOCK 05000483 A PDR l '
{ b f ...
.. i i
)
1
'g L T .1 c' f
ACXNOWLEDGENTS l The entire staf f at American Resources Group, Ltd., would like to i g thank the personnel of Union Electric Company Environmental Services j Department, Nuclear Engineering Department, end 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 l professional consultants during this project: Dr. Dal e R. Henning, l consulting archaeologist, and D r. George Fraunf elter, consulting geologist /geomorphologi st.
- i i
l l I l 1 1 l l I l I I 1
l
*'1 s -4 ') ..
,h hid'hb d I 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS i Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II , 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l Current Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 l Cultural Resources Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Summary of Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 Evaluation of Site Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Potential Adverse impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I Cultural Resources Management Considerations and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . Management Recommendations and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LIST OF MAPS ,
- 1. Cultural Resources and Land Use Patterns on Residual Lands . . 4
- 2. Potentially Significant Cultural Resources on Residual Lands . 24 LIST OF TABLES
- 1. Management Recommendations for Selected Sites. . . . . . . . . 28 il
i 1
. o 7g r .t g ) 4 k N 4
i A CULTijRAL RESOURCES MANAGEENT PLAN ' FOR RESIDUAL LANDS AT UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI j Introduction l This management plan and the Phase i cultural resources survey (Ray ' et al.1982) upon which it is based represents Union Electric Company's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665) 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 i 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 cuitural resources survey and assessment of approximately 5,848 acres (2,366 ha) was conducted on residual lands which surround the Union Electric Companf Callaway Nuclear Power Plant located in
] central Missouri 12 mi east of .Fulton, Missouri (Ray et al.1982). 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 Conservation manages the residual lands under a leas agreement with the property owner, Union Electric Company. A management plan currently in effect (Missourl 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 i
,,,q,
$121 i study, and other compatible activities the Company may w i sh to incorporate. The cuttural resources management plan wIII supplement the existing land use management plan and will 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 Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Service departments. Prior to the construction of the plant and related facilities, Union Electric Company met f ederal 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. This management plan includes the results of all surveys done on plant property. This cultural resources management plan consists of two parts. The I first includes background information such as the legal authority for 1 the study, previous cultural resources studies prepared for the plant l and related construction activities, current land use, concepts and l definitions of cultural resources management, summary of potentially l l 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 guidance for implementation of the management plan. Current Land Uma The residual lands at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant site are being managed to enhance wildlife 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 f acilitate this management plan include forest habitat (5,251 acres), fishing ponds (10 ponds over one-half acre), crop iands (2,480 acres crop and pasture), access roads, 2 _ - - I
m , b.m~. h hiking and equestrian trails, parking lots, and picnicing areas. A visitor's interpretive center also has been proposed (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976). Nonrecreational lands are designated restricted zones and include the area immediately surrounding the plant site and 10 ecology study plots (Map 1). Cultural Resources Manna == ant Cultural resources 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 i, historic archaeological resources and historic architectural resources. These resources are represented by sites, buildings, districts, and objects (Executive Order Counseling Notes Revised 8/1/74). Cultural resources management is tied inextricably to a body of federal legistotion. 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 recently, 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 cultural 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 3
-.--- = ---- _o p -. .g
, , a3 , ; ,,
^( ' ;" ; A-
_ _ _ d.c%,
- 301 g7 ,$";,
,.C'.D98
. (J' D 9Mp 4, Jaas - Ma
; - - *. c.
2.---- . s A r %. 30o . ; ..F ' N 257 Vg.4.s3ua O '. .. L. M e? d' o G 258 F*lL_ lA[J'~~~ v 291 7@ ' 54S i.4 267 Md
- d'7 '4:. .
,A p-;2M.Me,
'-**A d m
./"
M.' :. V l i % ,*, J C, 7- 1#st'.M 276 g i
D"n. .a a.4 -
hgt.t ;tt-
<?RL -- - p*-M.: '
QM ? kM'e.?~'dG N0li'S'l'
- 31'
~ ~ eF G ;*v ii K ~': .25f?
M.28% 3.h: .. 3,2n MA g* l kb y[$' i &l4 295 m2 68b
- 2S
%<e.9. s,,pe.. ~,,
3
=
y .
- , s, ~ a s . 9,3
.m..m,
, y Q T ~ ~iis ;
., g y '
4s .
.'. (hh,q,#m. TM . . .s..
Pjd. u "' 2
303
2 d' A-ll
,[69 Mu n . (,
. 8: / C4 . ..e v g ,
\ /.
*6 r;- S 5
*M
, z ttf>278 eo. , q,,' ,
. .255 e
5 E.
\ * +~ '
. .g ,.
o \ i,J'.:.9 <mm" g +:. J. . J.. w% j~'Y 'm ls y ips y$k.Tg,",*:e
.9, :i:'." " '242 .
,s ni n4 -
- i , i en 51
- d;f N Q1- > k 259e
- 4 h*252 A-ISV , e d
&g' 97 :
h sF ?:.m' ..
..a < 2n. O"
.. m_285
/
..- ~, % 259,l 2-. -.... 9. ~ 5 ...I..
WT /g s-w:i..M.m 4 17 : / s. 0 N 4,jho N ( / c.*sNS7.b,..e r;
, W 283 4 ,\ hI ' s' 37.4 r
--.296 r4 h'DI'$
- 3 T}ff .S ,l S ' t \f23f.h3M,w7/>
/ h,j d..,d,k7' ' $%A C
'e44 a p ---<g M
s4 .
- m. g ~'y ,
2 8 <<
.,.,g fi lll:p.;;
, Y +i. Md3M$fM;.,n0
$.e<w.q-f y's. e.. >4.- AY .'. '
I} . ; e. ' $f'b -h NE 4,*.. 'E . q<.u;.%,,jfly$,p%$lirEt,Q)%g% % ?}e %w% nt' d ,;dn 3r3 h y - fi':fmnqs.y,4yNWf'nW.ay 5*fM.gg - MAP 1 y i .
.,, yu c wt v,c Cultural Resources and 328 d$
..R?27 e f y/.
- m i!
=* N Land Use Patterns on y33Y?lp'i6if5N@n.%,.'g
,.. . , j T a
l Residual Lands 0M.. ., ,, M.
, ,h',,, M,g35 . @,e. b.
v.~.s,. e.v, _.M L ==; ..
. . ?. ,
_mt. = m 3s32;
.W,:.su
. 4I
..-A,'s.,y:!.%.3y
'.. ar T 33ha. -fjJ%.033 a. 332
---- s - a.f.y,.Q:,'5g :lQ, -
;r.gG%'Q \
. , . . . . . ===.. ,,,s, 3,2 . ,
< .. c, a . c ~., , r,,.<..' p**n..soww. . 3M, L
,$ ' .g , n W.
(.. s , <,
- s..toa.m.
a.a. a , . Q,, N *' . s, L.
- - ., n, 4y(*~~DTq a'o -
r, % ,; --,,,,,
..,eee n.m. te s. c , a,
*.~ s~ acc.n g'g.@g.3!
' e
/f t z' a ;
. . a >=a ,e>m, .g341:a.ts, .s j . . riouRC i as.
343. (.ce,. 6 n 200 A/s
'~----'"'.#' . 4%g. - RESTRICTCO ZOP4CS y . .
e ,, a, c.,. t.o . [+ f
.,r.p,
- s. ' '
W
- phaset esta, .e acctsa
- - , gag ;'gg'r,c%,,ao , acc888
.4 5,,,,, g,,,,
.oo s.i.o t '
P',h'Ns 7 353 e l I 1 STso, amtAt see DisTussesect
'" c [s..ewg #enes 1svi.m.r ta.n 5 acr. i .Ih@.1' di I i g.cs.useos, to.st, taasseaut ust out.
O t wwg esana t,s.r ta.a S ser. 3, , '1e y4pp
/
4 I'3 .. . i.c acc... Cf . - to 347 d W 359 ) g @ . 355 4
> .r, ., s.,
..t...e a,enee.ie.ical site .
p;m
.i46 -
' ,' ,(
in,.t.e's area. ).g*ca, 6,t.
- I~ si ,g,
$. ......a,....,,,.
__m g'g . - ,it,2 ., U,'Mhlid M= 74 .-- - - g lur'mP8"T.a** - 4
OCf[7 h dimensions of cultural resources management in an entire volume. While 1 many nonspecialists are required to evaluate reports and to make decisions about cultural resources, these persons of ten do not have the 1
' nor the inclination to review the growing body of literature on the l subject. For the present purposes, a brief review of the idea in the 1
form of a working definition will be usef ul. I Cultural resources management seeks to have i:ontrol (in action and use) and to have responsibility for sites, structures, objects, and districts which are historically, architecturally, archaeologically, or I culturally significant. Implementation of such control or responsibility may include inventory, assessment, recovery, research, protection, preservation, and enhancement, depending upon Individual resources and circumstances (McNerney 1978:93). i This definition emphasizes the control of and responsibility for cultural resources, a situation with which many landowning agencies and corporations find themse;ves confronted today. The primary i 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 administratively in cultural L resources management include Iand managers, planners, environmental planners, engineers, ecologists, real estate developers, and recreation l managers. At the present time, the agencies which will be primarily . l Involved in the management of cultural resources on the residual lands will be Union Electric Company, Missouri Department of Conservation, and the Missour! Office of Historic Preservation. Using the above definition, the management process may be briefly outlined. The first step of the management process involves inventory and l 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 l l
- 5 i
A r m .- N - considerations ordinarily addressed in a Phase i survey and assessment. A central issue during this phase and throughout the management process is the determination of significance. The evaluation of significance includes the collection and analysis of artif acts from archaeological sites, shovel tests or soit 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 baced 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 and to l'ndicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. The National Register was designed to be and -
! is a<fministered as a planning tool. The criteria are j The quality of significance in American history, l architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, Integrity of location, design, ) setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, 1 and: (l) That are associated w ith events that have made a significant contribuf f on to the broad patterns of our history; or . (2) That are associated with the Ilves 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 f work of a riaster, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack Individual distinctions or (4) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Federal Register i 1976:1595).
; The investigator's conclusion regarding the eligib!Ilty of a 1
particular property for nomination to the National Register is reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Of ficer in consultation with the 6
P S. .) ,;*i W-3.n,a; Ja ,e i bdia"fA d i 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 i 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 l
further and the properties may be altered. If the agencies and the SHPU 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 eligibility rests with the Office of I i Archaeology and Historic Preservation, a multicomponent of fice 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. Foilowing the Identification and assessment phase of the cuitural \ resources management process, land use limitations are offered which are l I designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicatad earl f er, - ! cultural resources are fragile, limited, nonrenewable portions of the ! natural and cultural environment; any direct land altering activities l l (i.e., roads, reservoirs) or Indire-t impacts (i.e., increased public use of an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the site. These potential impacts or adverse ef fects are evaluated, and appropriate mitigative alternatives are offered. Mitigation may include avoidance, data recovery through excavation, or other means of preservation. The foregoing provides a brief outline of the cultural resources 7
EN , . M a definition of cultural resources,N management process including: a AT.ib ( 3 summary definition of cultural resources management, a discussion of significance, and key concepts of cultural resources management. These concepts will serve as a framework within which to develop a cultural resources management plan for the residual lands. Summarv of Cultural Resources A total of 129 cultural resources elements was identified and evaluated dur ing the Phase I survey and assessment: 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21 architectural sites (Map 1). For more specific inf ormation regarding individual sites and related research i nf orm ati on, the reader is referred to the cultural resources report (Ray et al. 1982). PrehIstorie Resources Of the i9 prehistoric sites, cultural af filiation could not be determinad f or 62 sites (78.5%) due to the absence of culturally diagnostic artifacts. Forty-two (53.2%) of the sites recorded produced 10 waste flakes or less. Cultural af filiation was established for 17 (21.5%) sites. The more Intensively occupied sites which exnibit 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 f rom burial mounds (23 CY *
- 74) to possible villages (23 CY 356).
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 widely and sparsely distributed scatters of waste chert flakes. Occasionally, clusters of flakes and tool fragments mark a location where more time was spent manuf acturing or maintaining stone tools. 8
l h.t bC)- p ., Y!A ;L U d The most common artif acts recovered at all sites were chippec' stone tools and the waste flakes from their manufacture. This is true on many prehistoric archaeological sites, but it is especially common in the study area where quality chert resources are plentiful. J Historic Resources i 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, buildirg materials, and other domestic artif acts. The remaining 10 sites consis; of 1 nonhabitation si's (outbuilding), 1 dump area, 3 cemeteries, and 4 sites which were unable to be evaluated due to an insufficient amount of artifactural material and historical documentation. Sixteen of the 29 historic components are located within nonagricultural areas.
. Safety regulations required early demoiltion and bulldozing at 15 sites. This activity has effected the archaeological integrity at sites 4 23 CY 269, -271, -278, -279, -285, -297, -300, -319, -327, -329, -347,
-3 48, -273, -276, ~342.
l Historical documentation and archaeological evidence indicate that the historic occupation period for 19 of 29 sites ranged from 1840 to 1975 with 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 i documentation. ArchItacturai Reenuccas 1 Twenty-one architectural sites were recorded within the project area. They vary from sites with a single structure or ruin to f armsteads with a house and several outbuildings and associated structures. Only one site (21) dates exclusively to the nineteenth
- century, whlie the rest exhibit construction sequences spanning the a
9
l OPGE N.hbb,h > ', l l 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 1 is a telephone substition. Barns and sheds are the most common , l (14 each) structures, whIIe animal shalters number among the ieast l common. Overall, the configuration of existing structures and ruins is I typical of rural Missouri and the rural Midwest. I Evaluation of SIta Stanfffennen t I Prahlm+oric Sites l Conclusions regarding site significance are a major objective of j , alI cuitural resource surveys and assessments. The National Register of I Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for significance have been presented previously. Those sites which appear to be potentially eligible for i nomination to the NRHP are summarized in the following section. For ! l site specific information or additional background informatf or, the reader is referred to the Phase I report (Ray et al.1982). While the j NRHP criteria are useful for many historic and historic architectural sites, e.g., a president's birthplace or a battlefield, they of ten are i too general to estahlIsh clearly the potential significance of a , prehis,roric archaeological site or to justify Phase 11 Inyastigations at these sites (cf. Cc3iptroller General 1981:23-32). The Comptroller l General's report notes that ". . . It is impractical for [the Department of the] Interior to design all-encompassing criteria by which ! archaeological sites can be centrally evaluated for state and local 1 significance" (1981:25-26). Thus, significance is established through a j process of recommendations to the SHP0 by recognized professional 1 ' l archaeologists which are then subject to review and evaluation by the l SHPO. In order to initiate and facilitate this process, eight working 1 criteria were employed by American Resources Group, Ltd., to evaluate 10
,p m
;3.fa
.; j'[h $
s a ma iJ 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 I attributes:
- 1. site appeared to offer the potential to answer specific local or regional research problems.
- 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 peorly understood microenvironmental zone.
- 5. site represented a cultural period which has received littic research attention.
- 6. artif act 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 particuier settlement system.
- 8. site contained cultural material (animal bone) or artif acts (metate) which suggested it may contain specific subsistence data.
Such criteria are not all inclusive out have proved helpful in the evaluation process. Using these criteria and NRHP criteria, 23 sites are considered individually significant and potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. A brief summary 11
?1 hnn!(Lsi.' h' I V d 4 I li d bi 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 l cultural resources survey and assessment report (Ray et al.1982).
23 CY 20 The, site is a village or residential base camp and m ay be associated with either or both the large earthen mound (23 CY 74) and Iow rock mound (23 CY 350) Iocared on top of the adjacent ridge system or the mound group (23 CY 356) on the opposite ridge 700 m to the east. Similar pottery sherds suggest 23 CY 20 is at least contemporaneous, if l
)
not af fil iated with, 23 CY 352, another village site located on a similar terrace 500 m east of the site. An analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 20 indicates an unexpected selection for locally occurring Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, and supplemented by Jeff erson 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 artifacts at the site had i 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 - Includirg a Middle Woodland component. However, the pottery recovered from the site, a Scallorn arrow point, and other possible Woodland artif acts (Evans and Ives 1979a:19) Indicate that the major occupation was probably Late Woodl and (1500-1000 B.P.). The site's topographic setting indicates a high potential for buried cultural horizons. 23 CY 74 The site is apparently a burial mound and is probably representativs of the Boone Phase in central Missouri. The setting high on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the 12
f t; f b OONA[W j location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and the mounds are sometimes constructed entirely of earth (Chapman 1980:112). This probable mortuary site may be associated with the village site (23 CY
- 20) located on a terrace 600 m to the east. The Boone Phase is largely confined within the Lower Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman 1980:121; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly af filiated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:158) which ranges from 1500-1000 B.P. -
23 CY 256 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The Big Sandy Notched point suggest s a date range from /000-5000 B.P. (Chapman 1975:242). Thus, the site is affiliated with the Middle Archaic period. 23 CY 257 The site is a field camp and knapping station with little evidence of long term habitation. The high percentage (84.6%) of flakes greater than 2 cm2 suggests an initial lithic reduction station, and the almost exclusive use of Burlington chert Indicates procurement of nearby chart resources. The tool types suggest fabricating and processing activities. Site 23 CY 257 was revisited in May of 1982. A surface 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 bif aces, one large pref orm, one mano, and a probable platform preparation abrader; only the pref orm and the platf orm 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 bif aces (6 total) for a small field camp, the preform, and the platform preparation abrader all suggest the site was used primarily for 13
I jh f5"' b$ffi[ Initial reduction and biface manufacture. The fact that the majority of artif acts with cortex surf aces were knapped from stream deposited nodules suggests that most of the chert probably was procured from the l
)
nearby ravine and transported to the top of the _ ridge for reduction. The l arge pref orm, which was not heat treated, exhibits several attributes that are suggestive of an Etley Stemmed projectile 1 point /knif e (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 Etiey-like projectile point, a Late Archaic af filiation has been assigned to the : Ite. The probabl e olatf orm preparation (or antler flaker abrader) is a sandstone slab 12 x 18 cm and exhibits two parallel, slightly sinuous grooves on one surf ace. { 23 CY 267 The site is a small fields camp and knapping station with no evidence of substantial habit'ation. Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 267 Indicates an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposits; how ever, the two Jefferson City flakes indicate transportation of that chart from at least 1.5 km distant. A fluted Clovis projectile point indicates a Paleo-Indian occupation ca. 12,000 8.P. 23 CY 291 The site is a small field camp with three discrete knapping stations. The relatively high percentage (63.4%) of flakes greater than 2 2 cm indicates initial reduction lithic workshops. The artif actual data also indicate an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, procured from both stream deposited and residual sources; however, the Jef f erson City fl ake Indicates transportation of that chert from approximately 1.E km distant. The tool types suggest f abricating and processing activities. Cultural affiliation is unknown. 14
y l.D>
;y 7 j 1 Y2 b l
, 23 CY 303 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 pitted / hammer / grinding stone indicates plant processing activities. The Rice Lanceolate component suggested by the point base and serrated midsection is affiliated with i
the Early Archaic period (9000-7000 B.P.) and possibly continues into the Middle Archaic (Chapman 1975:253). 23 CY 304 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 .nreparation. Ant!ysis of the chert cample from 23 CY 304 Indicates a predominant 1 utilization of Burlington chert, mostly procured from the nearby creek bed. A small triangular arrow point recovered at the site is affiliated j with the Late Woodland / Mississippi period which ranges from 1200-500 8.P. In the study area. 23 CY 309 The site appears to represent a seasonal or reoccupied field camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert sample f rom 23 CY 309 Indicates a predominant use of local Burlington chart, mostly procured , i f rom stream deposited sources. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering. The Etiey Stemmed projectile point / knife is af filiated with the Late Archaic period (5000-3000 8.P.) and is a diagnostic artif act of the Booth assemblage and Culvre River ceremonial complex in northeast Missouri (Chapman 1975:246). r 15
1I pe:+73f33
, ' p; n 3g 23 CY 314 aJ The site is probably a small field camp and knaming station with one and possibly two features visible on the surf ace. The feature (s) may be a simple fire hearth (s) or possibly chert heat treatment pit (s).
The heat-altered chert was exclusively Burlington chart probably procured from the nearby creek. Cultural affiliation is unknown. 23 CY 321 The site is a small field camp and knapping station with evidence of plant food processing activities. Based on available data, chert procurement was predominantly from the closer Burlington sources. However, one-third of the artifacts were made from Jefferson City chert located at least twice as f ar away. Cultural affiliation is unknown. 23 CY 322 The site is a small field camp and knapping station with no ' evidence of substantial habitation. The relatively high percentage of secondary decortication flakes and flakes in general with dimensions greater than 2 cm2 (61.3%) Indicates initial iIthic reduction. A triangular arrow point suggests the site was also used as a hunting camp during the Late Woodland / Mississippian periods ca. 1200-500 B.P. Analysis of the limited chert sample from 23 CY 322 indicates a pref erence f or Burlington chert. Both stream deposited and residual chert sources were utilIzed. 23 CY 328 The site is a small field camp and knapping station lacking avidance of permanent habitation. The artifactual evidance Indicates bifacial tool manufacturing, probably for cutting and butchering purposes. A corner-notched, hafted tool is probabiy af f!! lated wIth the Late Archale/Early Woodland transition period, which ranges from 4000-2500 B.P. In the study area. 16
=*s
."; U
, , ' l. .C ll4 2 {
23 CY 334 The site is a chert procurement and primary reduction knapping statloa wIth no evidence of habitation. The presence of 53 cores, the near absence of worked / utilized artif acts, the f act that 67.5% of the flakes recovered were decortication flakes, and that-85.9% were greater then 2 cm2 are all consistent with what woula 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 Jefferson City chart source. Cultural cffiliation is unknown. 23 CY 345 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The haf ted drilI indicates activities such as stone, bone, and/or wood 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.). 23 CY 346 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. A chert analysis of the artif acts from 23 CY 346 Indicatas a selection for and
~
predominant utilization of Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, over readily available residual / redeposited Jeff erson City chert. The fact that 74% of the flakes 2 collected were less than 2 cm suggests primary reduction at the chert sources (creek beds) and tertiary reduction or finishing / resharpening on The site. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by tool types include hunting and butchering. The three CalIaway chert fIakes, alI found in one shovel test, Indicate some use, although minimal, of this scarce chert known to occur 6.5 km away. 17 l
in
;. ]s .7 rlm
& uddj A Dalton point recovered at the site represents the transitional period between Paleo-Indian and Archaic times or Late Paleo/Early Archalc, 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). 23 CY 349 o The site is probably a reoccupied camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities. The analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 349 Indicates a heavy reliance on or preference for Burlington chert, probably procured from local redeposited sources, over read!!y available residual or stream deposited Jefferson City chert. This small habitation site may be associated or affiliated with 23 CY 74, a Middle or Late Woodland mound located at the southern end of the site. 23 CY 350 This small rock feature is probably a mortuary mound site and may represent a Boone Phase mound. A few waste flakes suggests that flir .' knapping also was carried on in the site vicinity. The setting high on a bluf f overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and burials do sometimes occur under stone cairns (Denny 1964:141). The Boone Phase is - largely confined within the lower Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly affiliated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1%4:158). 23 CY 351 l 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 the site. Analysis of the chert artifacts from 23 CY 351 Indicates a predominant use of and preference for BurlIngton chert, probably procured entirely from redeposited sources, over readily 18 {
h] 9 C l;n yng y O.duf 2 lldd j available residual or stream deposited Jefferson City chert. Most of the limited amount of Jef ferson City chert that was used probably came from residual sources. One-fourth of the Burlington artif acts 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 tue site. Cultural f affiliation is unknown. 23 CY 352 The site is a village or residential base camp and is probably associated with the mound group (23 CY 356) stop the adjacent ridge. t SImiIar pottery sherds suggest 23 CY 352 Is at ieast contemporaneous if not af f i I l ated w i th 23 CY 20, another v i l I age s i te I ocated on a s i m i l ar terrace 500' m to the west. Activities suggested by the tool types and debitage include secondary, but predominantly tertiary, flint knapping i and tool maintenance, the manuf acture 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 23 CY 352 is prooably af filiated with the Late Woodland period and may be associated with the Boone Phase of central . and east-central Missouri; suggested dates range from 1500-1000 B.P. Both Boone PIain 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 DarnelI or Graham Cord Marked and Graham Plain pottery types probably are associated with Late Woodl and peoples (Chapman 1980:280-281). All four pottery types are found primarily in the Lower Missouri Valley 11 Locality (Chapman 1980:276, 280-281, 289). The site's location on an alluvial terrace suggests a high potential for buried cultural deposits. 19
mm.
.-~ v
..) ;
, ,3 . *'
- d. :.u 5.i d U i
23 CY 353 The site is probably a reoccupied seasonal camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert artif acts from 23 CY'353 Indicates a predominant utilization of Burlington chert (715), probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role (29%) , for Jefferson City chert. Even among the Jefferson City chert that was I used, there was a tendency to procure it from nearby stream deposited sources rather than from residual sources. I Examination of the debitage suggests primary, secondary, and tertiary reduction on the site. Activities other than flint knapp!ng suggested by tool types include hunting and butchering, hide processing, 1 and plant food preparation / processing. The incidence of heat treatment 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 23 CY 353 Indicate a multicomponent site with predominanfly Archaic and Woodland occupations. Although possibly inhabited during the Early Archaic period, the major components suggested by the surf ace ccliection tentatively have been afflifated with the Middle to Late Archaic (7000-2500 8.P.) and Late Woodland (1500-1000 8.P.) periods. The site's terrace setting provides the potential for buried cultural deposits. , 23 CY 356 The site is a seasonal camp and knapping station with a probable mortuary mound complex located on the south end of the site. Five low earthen mounG were located, recorded, and tested with a soll probe. Analysis of the chert artif acts from 23 CY 356 Indicates an unexpected preference for Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role for nearby Jef ferson City chert. Other activities suggested by the tool types and debitage include 20
hunting and butchering, drilling, plant food processing, and human - burial. Twenty-two bif acial 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 artif acts found at 23 CY 356 Indicate a multi-component site with predominantly Arc'haic and Woodland occupations. The two Big Sandy Notched points located by 'he survey are associated with the Middle Archaic period 'ca. 7000-5000 B.P. (Chapman 1975':242), and the two Big Sandy-like points represent styles which may have persisted into
, the Late Archaic period.
The major component at 23 CY 356 is af f i l i ated w ith the Late Woodl and period (1500-1000 B.P.) and may represent a manif estation 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 Scallcrn Corner Notched projectile points found on the site 4 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 (23 CY 352) located on the adjacent terrace directly below or west of the ridge and 23 CY 356. 23 CY 359 From the small (selective) amount of material collected during the l preliminary reconnaissance, it is evident that the site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. AlThough the small selective sample is biased toward tools, there was no bias in collecting artifact chert types. A chert analysis indicates that there may have been a preference 21 l
f das r 1 for making tools out of Burlington chert since all of the projectile points and all but one bif ace were knapped from this fossiliferous j chert. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by the tool types I include hunting and butchering and plant food processing. 1 The diagnostic artif acts indicate the site is multicomponent with I predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. The side-notched point tentatively identified as Graham Cave. Notched suggests the site may have l 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 arrow point is a Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) point type (Chapman 1975:312). 1 S tan f fleant Histor-f c Archaeoloolcal Siten Identifying potentially significant historic archaeological sites ) which date from the mid nineteenth to early twentieth centuries is l difficult at this time. Many states are in the process of preparing l state management plans; and, when this is completed, historic research problems which might be answered through archaeological research during this time span will be forthcoming. The State of Missouri is working on i such a plan; and, when it is available, it will provide a research i framework' which will facilitate the evaluation of Individual historic sites. As indicated earller, many of the former homes and f armsteads in I the study area were 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 s I potential for further archaeological and historical research. l Site 23 CY 261 is an undisturbed homestead in the upland prairie 22 l x 1
l q p iP U y) .m, du : : b bh a zone. The artifact assemblage from the site ranges from ca. 1840-1929. The site is depicted on early maps in 1876, 1897, and 1919. This evidence Indicates some continuity from the mid-nineteenth century to 4 the early twentieth century. This was a period of rapid change in central it!ssouri, and the apparent undisturbed nature of the deposits may of fer an opportunity to study this change in the archaeological record. 4 Site 23 CY 339 is a log structure, partially in ruin, located in the rugged forest zone in the southern part of the study area (Map 2). The s i te's unique location on a rocky hillside poses interesting historical research questions. Historic Architecturni SItas it is the conclusion (Ray et al.1982) that none of the historic architectural sites or features are potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register Historic Places. Individually or as a group, the structures are neither unique nor rare. For more detailed information on the architectural resources, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey report (Ray et al.1982). Potential Adversa Imnacts 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 75 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 usually major Iand altering activities carrled out in conjunction w Ith road, reservoir, pipeIine, stock pond, and IandfIII construction, to mention just a few. The ef f ect of such activities on fraglie, non-renewable cultural resources is obvious and of ten decisive. There are 23
r , .m = m y/ d, 9 'p s
~
s
' i# >_ #^~ ;-f( *25'y H 9+- '
h,'~k " q ' i,)f 0 l gl Ni F1,.hj,3 w: g% A f@:;1.p'. M,7- q !. .
$ 5"# l *M e 6 %k -
,[. [ ]I
^
31Y
-i
, E _
zsal . . k'Oh',s .!.N\,p/ A
~
d <:1
.#ch ,3q s_r -./, n ' .[; ,s q ., {3$.. -
. aci-,iA
' \ ,
, i 2
.a4-11
....., /
-s .
c y; .- ; . . [k, h ' g -' 4
\ f ! ! 7"3'" '
+.
4 .: .
- ( .
-{-
S k- 3zt t he "T - 4[jl~ .$ g ! j H e s : ev i . Jg g. li7 rs,Ph- d . A, f_l 1 _
?.
~
-j . t!.. $ . ..
' d.-[.{., S .
( j i / s.p
' '?
' {4 2'1'#'l5 l.e.xcw wsq - W f I...c . ' i\ , , * . s.
f[ .,hg (/ f .- ,, .. 3-32d
- h ', ,,
, 'f. s.i h
\ i\
} ,
t y s .. i,
) }
, / C! t i
) 'h . %s., .;' '
.g ,
- W, ,
'y ' 'y, .. .e.
,q . no . 1,2 y Potentially Significant M .; s i.') ! ';
- Y'i. **
Cultural Resources - " ' ' " -
\ ..
d 'h.A 6T ' .+.i on Residual Lands s t ,~ L es.
, .1 ^W ns .
'/
temo . p- !
}~ : z.-a g;4 h} -
i- 339 t
\ t' 'W.
e ar, L / aannua r r ar = *==. AuscatesGrene Amass (CawwW
! r a
.j ( ,)'%,
(- Qj.' s , samemme (min. Ilsen re,asse )
==.=- Eastung Grs.us #eems (Cawne {
,'d
'-"i"
ss.. e names is te Cleese er Auranas ry Ames aman %s '. y _ , , , , , Rawtes 3sur ( !
.. e a o.==-e !* l ! ! snounc i seav tienne v zoo e/w . gs a / Rt3TmCTto ECNc3 w....~.",,,,<,_.,_ >.v. . w assa,is acesss
.6
** 80 Pr=*'er euer zanu a,
-e e m nossa=w a n=.sa-o ,
,g c:::':"3 c cw e ,v swruseo.as p (===s sus a Larver mm.s acre w sunus acessa
{ t 4,gg,y i _} r " T a- a i a,r* culture rx p% i t =
).
@ presitstaric artneselegical Site *MM ,$ M
@ enem areaseelevical site p.-
a 3d46Q v, 351.- 4d ' 352 f muer*e arenstactural site 3 349, y; -@ \ . .e .. p, ss I 350 ,
; n.a.
24
) n " q ru gs ii' t. t t t d direct impacts that are much less destructive than these major construction activities. Cultivation related to agricultural i production, logging activities, trenches for underground telephone
- cables, trenches for small diameter water lines, camp grounds, and development of picnic areas are examples of direct impact which are less destructive than the impacts from major construction. Each category of
- direct impact may have related Indirect impacts. For example, various silvicultural harvesting techniques may have varying degre?.s of adverse ef f ects to cultural resources; however, a new rsad constructed to the proposed logging area would be f ar more destructive to cultural resources than the actual timber harvest. Or, a 100 acre reservoir constructed in a ravine which contains no archaeological sites may have a variety of construction related Indirect impacts (e.g., borrow areas used for dam fill) which may effect other archaeological sites. The .
construction of equestrian or 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 (23 CY 74, Map 1) would increase the opportunities for vandalism, malicious f ooting, or uninformed collecting. Some examples of potential Indirect impacts might include increased public usage of
~
all recreational facilities on the residual lands, so!! 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 usef ul ness of a management plan as a short and long range planning tool, both for Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation. Generally, the current land use management plan which emphasizes w ildlif e management and recreation is compatible with the needs of cultural resources management. Potential adverse impacts from 25
'",7 ..
i x b ij . d cultivation, erosion, trail construction, picnic grounds, silviculture, etc., are not as destructive as some other types of activities. Also, agricultural crop rotation may 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 o'f land use restrictions and limitations will be central to the spectfIc management recommendations. Cul+ ural Resources Manacament Considerations and R m- ,dations The final steps in the management process include: (1) nominating ' the potentially significant resources to the National Register of Historic Places, (2) the relationship between the nomination process and the anticipated potential adverse impacts, (3) the Company's general management needs, and (4) the Company's recommendations and guidelines to preserve and protect the potentially significant cultural resources. The interrelationships between f actors (1) through (4) will determine the specific guidelines for the management of each resource. Of the 80 prehistoric archaeological sites recorded and evaluated during the Phase I survey and assessment, 23 are considered potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Two historic archaeological sites also are considered potentially oligible for nomination to the register. Based on the historic architectural evaluation, none of the architectural sites or f eatures ' is considered eligible for nomination to the National Register. Nomination of Individuallv Signifiennt Sites Current state cultural resources management guidelines recommend Phase ll testing of potentially eligible sites identified during the Phase I survey to f urther evaluate National Register eligibility 26
-_.% _,7 , ,
M U lb (Welchman 1979). Since no site was found that was located in an area of potential env!ronmental impact related to the operation and maintenance of the plant or associated f acilitles, the completion and submission of nomination forms for each potentially eligible site will be deferred until a potentially significant site is actually threatened. i I in the Interim, the 25 sites identified as potentially eligible for i i nomination to the National Register of Historic Places will be protected
- from adverse impact by placing a conservative protection boundary zone around each site. In the event that an activity impacting a site wilI occur, outride of those discussed in the following section (Management Recommandations and Guldallnes), then further evaluation will be conducted to f urther determine eligibility for nomination to the National Register.
Manna m t Rec.- ndatienn and GuIdelInas The key management elements with regard to the prehistoric and historic archaeological sites which will be of primary concern to Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation -!Il be current land use, land use limitations, and the statement of potential National Register eligibility. The three primary types of land use on the residual lands are cemeteries, agricultural, and nonagricultural. Cemeteries consist mostly , of small family plots, long abandoned and overgrown with brush and weeds. Agricultural use includes row crop, pasture, and related agricultural land usage. Nonagricultural use consists of forest, brush, and weeds. The land use and ground cover notations (Table 1) reflect conditions at the time of survey in the fall and winter of 1981. For management purposes, land use recommendations consist of three types of Iimitations: (1) none, (2) avoid, and (3) limited agriculture (Table 1). A land use limitation of "none" is recommended at all sites 27
4 Table 1 Management Recosenendations for Potentially Significant Sites Site Site Location Cultural Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resources Management No (Acres) Afflitation Limitations
- Recommendations 23CY-20 7.4 SE4, W I, SW4, $35 Middle Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve Phase II If. threatened 74 .1 SW4, W4, SEl, S35 Middle-Late Forest Avoid Preserve Phase II If threatened Woodland Burial mound 256 5.g NEl,SEl,SEl,511 Middle Archaic Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened 257 14.8 SE4, W A, SEl, 51 Late Archaic Brush, crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II If threatened 267 8.2 Mll, SW4, SW), 52 Paleo-Indian Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase !! If threatened 291 6.0 WI, W4, SWA Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase il if threatened NEl, NE4, SEl, S6 303 14.8 SEl,SEl,$10 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase II If threatened 1 304 3.2 W4, W4, SE4, $10 Late Woodland Crop Limitad Agri Preserve, Phase 11 if threatened Mississippian 309 13.6 Ei, W A, NE4, $10 Late Archaic Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II If threatened 314 .25 NEl,NE4,NEl,511 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase il if threatened 321 10.5 NEl, SW4, HEi, SIS Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase II If threatened 322 4.5 SW4, NEl, NE4, 522 Late Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve Phase 11 if threatened Mississippian 328 1.0 WA, SWA, SEl, 523 Late Archatc? Crcy Limited Agri
, Preserve. Phase !! If threatened i
+ Limited Agriculture-see page 27 Avold-see page 30 h-j,[$
g ff nr--Q')) . Lb ,.. , . _ _ -- _ _ - __ _-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ W ._:::.I_ _ -
.. . . ~
h i Table 1 (cont.) Situ Size Location Cultural Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resources Management No (Acres) Affiliation Limitations + Recommendations 23CY-334 1.1 Si, WI, NEl, 525 Unknown Forest Avoid Preserve Phase !! If threatened 345 1.25 Si,SEl,NE4 Middle Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve Phase II If threatened
- NE4, NEl, SEl, 535 346 10.0 MI, W4, SEA Early Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve Phase 11 f f threatened
, SEl,SWI,NE4,535 Dalton 349 2.5 WI, W4, SEl, 535 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve, Phase II ff threatened m 350 .1 SW4, W4, SE4, $35 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II ff threatened
- o Burial mound?
351 5.0 WI,NEl, SEA Unknown Grass Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II If threatened NEl,NES,SEl,535 352 6.2 WI, NEl, SWI Middle and Late Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened NEl, W4, SW4, 536 Woodland 353 8.4 Ei, NE4, W4, 536 Middle and Late Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase il if threatened Archaic 356 11.0 MI, NEl, SWI Middle Archaic Weeds Limited Agri Preserve Phase 11 If threatened SE4, SE4, WI, $36 Late Woodland 359 30.0 WI, W4, 536 Middle Archaic Grass Close upper road to Preserve Phase Il if threatened late Woodland prevent erosion; Avoid 261 1.0 NEl, NEl, W4, 513 Historic Grass Limited Agri Phase Il evaluation if threatened 339 1.0 SEl, SE4, W4, 525 Historic Forest f. void Phase !! evaluation if threatened h.].. . t.? > . . . . CD ' - t~ , . LU- 7, J 24 1 .w ,if__fd
~
.C h @ a* i
.;4fJ Ilddii d 5.
which are not considered potentially eligible for nomination to the 1 National Register. Avoidance requires that a site's surf ace and subsurface integrity be maintained by prohibiting innd altering activities. All potentially eligible sites which are in forest L vegetation and all historic cemeteries are to be avoided. Limited agriculture can continue at potentially significant sites presently being used for agricultural purposes. Limited agricultural activity with reference to poteittially significant archaeological sites permits shallow discing to allow the sowing of grass seed. The rationale for this recommendation is threefold. First, these sites are of ten surrounded by major row crop areas and to allow brush and forest vegetation to return could be inconvenient to other agricultural activities. Second, if the sites are allowed to return to a natural state and at a later date require Phase 11 testing, the removal of brush and trees would be expensive and harmful to the site. Third, 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 Missouri Department of Conservation. The following guidelines will Insure site preservation and facilitate the management objectives of Union Electric Company. To insure the identification and preservation of 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 alI wIthin agrIcuttural f f elds (pastures) are marked wIth wooden , lath to avoid damaging farm machinery. All stake tops are sprayed with 30
-.___.m.__, _,. -, _ . _ . . _ . - . . . _ _ .
~1 blbb$bl ,
orange paint *,.d marked with yellow plastic flagging. The boundaries l are placed appro>Jmately 150 ft beyond site limits to provide a proper butfor zc';,
- 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 a construction, pond and reservoir construction, building construction, electrical transmission substation construction, cultivation (deep plowing or chisel plowing) and silviculture.
- 2. Limited cultivation in the form of shallow discing is permissable in order to maintain grass cover on those sites where Iimited agriculture is recommended (Table 1).
- 3. The Environmental Services Department of Union Electric Company should be contacted well in advance of any land use activities outside those found in Table 1 which may af fect the potentially significant sites. The Environmental Services Department will Insure identification of site boundaries, will establish buffer zones, and contact other regulatory agencies when appropriate.
- 4. Phase il testing for the purpose of further evaluating significance will not occur until a potentially significant site is threatened by adverse impacts (Table 1).
- 5. The architectural sites on the residual lands are not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and are not subject to land use limitations.
- 6. There are no land use Ilmitations or restrictions for sites (other than cemeteries) which are considered not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
- 7. For planning and management purposes, a USGS topographic map 31
i O.* ;n;tu a precisely locates all the cultural resources on the residual lands. If 1 i there is any question regarding the exact location of a potentially significant site, the Environmental Services Department should be I l contacted. The Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment of the Callaway 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 will Insure the continued preservation of the potentially significant archaeological resources into the future. e 32
f h @q :O
; ,; M REFERENCES b dNN N Chapman, Carl H.
1975 The archmanleav of Mimmouri. l. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 1980 The archmanloov of Minneurl. I I. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. Comptroller Genera!, of the United States 1981 Ara acancien dolna annunh or too much for archmanloalcal oramarvation? Guidance naaded. Report to the Chairman, Committee of Interior and insular Affairs, House of ! Representatives. U. S. Goverment Accounting Office Report CED-61-61. Gaithersburg, M). Denny, Sidney G. 1%4 A re-evaluation of the Anana Focume a La+a Wandland manffastation 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 f il e, 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 archaeological survey of the proposed Union Electric Company Nuclear Reactor near Reform, Callaway .
- County, Missouri. Ms. on fIIe, Union Elactric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
1978 A cuitural resources survey of the proposed Union Electric Company 345KV transmission line right-of-way, CalIawey and Montgomery counties, Missouri. Ms. on f i I e, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri. 1979a 23CY20 the preservation plan for an archaeological site. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri. 1979b A cultural resources survey of the proposed Union Electric Company 345KV transmission line right-of-way, Gasconade and Osage counties, Missouri. Ms. on f i l e, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri. l 33
I g7: - ;q Federal Reafster dd ', 1 1976 ~ Rules and regulations 41(6):1595. 2d23dd3.3 I Goodyear, Albert C. 1982 The chronological position of the Dalton horizon in tha southeastern United States. American Antlau f tv 47(2):382-395. King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg 1977 Anthronology on historic oreservition. caring for cultures clutter. Academic Press, New York. McNerney, Michael J. 1978 A cultural resource overview of the Shawnee National Forest. Cultural Resources Management Studies #27. Fischer-Stein, Associates. Carbondale, Illinois. Missouri Department of Conservation 1976 A plan of management 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. M-Nerney, Edward Morin, R. Gail White, and Kurt R. Moore 1982 A phase I cultural resources survey and assessment on residual lands at Union Electric Company's nuclear power plant, CalIaway County, Missouri. Ms. on fIIe, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois. Schif fer, Michael 8., and John H. House (assemblers) 1975 The Cache River archaeological project: an experiment in contract archaeology. Research Series #8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Jonesboro. Welchman, Michael S. 1979 Guidelines f9e reoortino chase ll testing of ~ archaeological site significance and evaluation of National Recister eligibilltv. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri. 34}}