ML20072A459
| ML20072A459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1983 |
| From: | UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072A456 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-830603, NUDOCS 8306100148 | |
| Download: ML20072A459 (49) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t l
e FINALDRAhTREPORT A Cultural Resources Management Plan i for Residual Lands at Union Electric l ,
Company Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Callaway County, Missouri E
8306100148 830603 PDR ADOCK C5000483 A PDR
ABSTRACT 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 at Union Electric Company's Callaway Nuclear Power Plant, located in Callaway County, Missouri, is presented.
A total of 129 cultural resources sites was 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 archaeo'ogical sites are recommended as potentially eligible f or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and two historic 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 will be protected from subplow zone disturbance by this management plan.
I
I.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The entire staf f at American Resources Group, Ltd., would like to thank the personnel of Union Electric Company Environmental Services Department, Nuclear Engineering Department, and Real Estate Department f or 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, i consulting archaeologist, and Dr. George Fraunfelter, consulting geologist /geomorphologist.
II
e TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . . .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Il List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ill List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
~
Current and Future Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cultural Resources Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Summary of Cul tural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Evaluation of Site Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Potential Adverse impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Management Recommendations and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 LIST OF MAPS
- 1. Operation and Maintenance Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 2. Cultural Resources and Land Use Patterns on Residual Lands . . 10
- 3. Operation and Maintenance Zones with Significant Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 LIST OF TABLES
- 1. Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites Located on Residual Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 s
- 2. Management Recommendations for Potentially Significant Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ill
f A CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESIDUAL LANDS AT UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI Introduction This management plan and the Phase I cultural resources survey (Ray et al.1983) 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 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission compliance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic and Cuitural 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 Nuclear Power Plant located in central Missouri 12 mi east of Fulton, Missouri (Ray et al.1983). The primary objective of the Phase I survey and assessment was to locate, m 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 Missourt Department of Conservation manages the residual lands under a lease agreement with the property owner, Union Electric Company. A _
management plan currently in ef fect (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976) recommends that the highest management priority is to maintain a l
diverse, high-quality natural environment which will provide recreational activities such as fishing, controlled hunting, nature 1
- - - - - -- - . . . . ... . u.a w w
study, and other compatible activities the Company may wish to incorporate. The cultural resources management plan will 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 Services departments.
Prior to the construction of the plant and related f acilities, Union Electric Company met federal legislative and regulatory _
requirements by f unding 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 1981 a, 1981 b ). 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 significant cultural resources ident! fled 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 i There are two general types of land use. areas at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant site, operation and maintenance areas and wildlife management areas (residual lands). Activities associated with each of 2 I h
P e
.. ,- 'r .
the two areas is different and thus requires different cultural resources management approaches.
Operation and maintenance zones include electrical transmission lines, heavy haul r oa d", settling ponds, railroad spur, quarry, waterIInes (underground), emergency operations f acility, meterological tower, landfill area, borrow pits, and ecology , plots (Map 1).
Activities in these areas would 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, 197 9a, 1979b; McNerney 1982: Tucker and Mor.in 1981 a,1981b). These assessments were carried out ahead of construction and, with the exception of site 23 CY 20, did
, not impact significant cultural resources. Excavations were carried out 1
to mitigate the impacts of railroad construction at site 23 CY 20 (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 rccoIved survey and assassment. (2) alI areas have been impacted by previous construction activity, and (3) all operation and maintenance zones which contain cultural resources (23 CY 20 and 23 CY 352) will be protected by this management plan.
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-hat f acre), crop Iands (2,480 acres crop and pasture),
access roads, hiking and equestrian trails, parking lots, and picnicing 3
- ..-s .. .. ,- . . . . - .. , - . < . . .
-o= _ _ _ _ _0
}---------
m ,s
. _s _ _ _ _ ___ g ____d.,
. O P vy c. s
--- x.o, .y . v,3' c, l N %, e ,.
W . 6' \ j, ~l 0 .. -6 .
pl p
[ ,,
- I \ G .y ,,/ *
?'
- !:yi . . .h .j t- .h :M.-_ , f. JD "
-% y %.,e '
E N't.'*. e ll2_KV Constmetion Power Lines '
lConstructionPowerSuestationP-d! [.? sg (
a L,' )" .
e.M. s /* I .a - 1 Mine/Quarryl 19 *==% ' , ,, N Q) sh. ,sq ,345 KV Transmission Linej
, l
- . !,'3 e as
,I--~P 6 ' 's j
a
+- '
o_- ,t i l
_%;f- D \ .,J$ettlingPondsl,
! ym n e Heavy Haul Road l
, g 7 f , .
4 eg eees, g .,
12 KV Const ction Power Lines l
,b ;
e O , %
- 3+ p ...... % y ,' =.y .a..... 7-
{ Emergency Oper ns Facility {Proposeo Borrow Pits}
7 ,
' ~
- / S' Sanitary Landfilll ~.
e_
s / _ ..,, . ..
. A
- ,y -
o
(. < !
dN, /
, /
EXCt.USIOP4
/ .- -
f- -
eIONG T as N ' N, ) 4;- e.
- - [{*-[
l345 KV Transmission Line ee es c ,
- a , "g l }
I l Future Sludge Disposal Systemi c.
.N 1 i i l' f
/ Ecology Plot l a
jg',[.
,f 7 .
b t
\
l13.8 KV Feeder Linej . ,*( '.
j -
-jl345KVTransmissionLinell
~ ;* . -
e iwea,y na>i Road, i
L.
- q e
.r N
- ( , ..
- :
MAP 1 -1 1, ,,!
(j:!.% ;;- '.- g. _ e.;
Operation and Maintenance Zones '(r . .. * ,Q M,., . . .Rs11roadSourl #;
_1.fdQD. . ;
I hi )9 ' , .-/)
f; -
.+ 0 l
?
- so
,e
,ve ee ,.e e. ; h '.. . '\ -
f
- t.
.e.
e a
.e.
e e.. Ec ,,i re. .ees.
p.u-
'7 #m
. . , -] _
m,,,, -
te.shas (,s.es .seen (cewn,p - 8 y .,
y eaeaee Ases. To se Usses er Gs.ame.Fw Acac Acceen m see s., ,
/
Fyemmes .eWaee a 0 scharge g l t,
-*~ 34s av two, L nes 200 A/W '
2 M /
M sectas Camer e- <
- ' . + T.aeeres area. ,*;; y ,
_ s owere tem.e, stw, swi 1 t.
- ..IIQ :l,,.
.'- m co *,=** we tones *
=-
y D e.aese V"- '<,e b fi C
o t s *.v.sw w 5 acr.
p -.s, ~ ~
i g
g
.;. \. s 7
,/
/
'/g Operation and Maintgance Zones .. . I I g -M' S' y 6- . > *~
- s - = ,,.
\. }f- y , , .
y"- .: , ., f
/=&vpw
~
. : < r i %isoa,ge,1eiinei f M B,f hIntake Pipeline [ *
,,s
.=.v.~..,,,,~
e 4 =ca -5 v'"
areas. A visitor's interpretive center also has been proposed (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976). Potentially significant cultural resources vithin wildlife management and agricultural zones will be protected by this management plan.
Cultural Resources Manacement
" 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 cul tur.al development. Cultural resources include prehistoric aad
~
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 legislation. The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 in recognition that cultural resources (archaeological sites only at that time) required protection f rom 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 dimensions of cultural resources management in an entire volume. While 5
many nonspecialists are required to evaluate reports and to make decisions about cultural resources, these persons of ten do not have the time nor the inctination to review the growing body of IIterature on the subject. For the present purposes, a brief review of the idea in the form of a working definition will 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,
, 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 pri mary 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 resources management include land managers, planners, environmental planners, engineers, ecologists, real estate developers, and recreation managers. At the present time, the agencies which will be primarily involved in the management of cultural resources on the residual lands will be Union Electric Company, Missouri Department of Conservation, and the Missouri 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 L
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 phase and throughout the management process 6
t
Is the determination of significance. The evaluation of significance includes the collection and analysis of artif acts f rom archaeological sites, shovel tests or soli 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 authorJtative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to !dentify the Nation's cultural resources and to Indicate what properties should be considered for protection 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, workmanship, f eeling, and association, ands (1) That are associated with events tha1 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 yleid, Information important in prehistory or history (Federal Register 1976:1595).
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 of ficial appointed by the governor whose job it is to insure that the cultural resources of the state are not destroyed arbitrarily and to 7
d
make recommendations to protect such resources. It is the SHP0 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 SHP0 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 Archaeology and Historic Preservation, a multicomponent of fice within the National Park Service, the core unit of which is the National Register of Historic P1 aces (King et al. 1977:88). If the properties do not meet any of the criteria, no f urther action is required. 'If the property is determined eligible, then appropriate preservation measures are developed by the responsible agencies.
Following the Identification and assessment phase of the cultural resources management process, land use limitations are of fered which are designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicated earlier, cultaral resources are fragile, I lm ited, nonrenewable portions of the natural and cultural environment; any direct land altering activities (i.e., roads, reservoirs) or Indirect Impacts (i.e., increased public use of an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the site. These potential impacts or adverse ef f ects are eval uated, and appropriate mitigative alternatives are of fered. Mitigation may include avoidance, data recovery through excavation, or other means of preservation.
The foregoing provides a brief outilna 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 resourcos management. These 8
I 9
cencepts will serve as a framework within which to develcp a cultural resources management plan for the residual lands.
Summarv of' Cultural Resources A total of 129 sites (Map 2, Table 1) was 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 l
research Information, the reader is referred to the cultural resources report (Ray et al.1983).
Prehistoric Resources.
Of the 79 prehistoric sites, cultural af filiation could not be determined for 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 flilation was established for 17 (21.5%) sites.
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 (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 fIakes. OccasIonalIy. clusters of fIakes and tool fragments mark a location where more time was spent manuf acturing or maintaining stone tools.
The most common artifacts recovered at all sites were chipped stone tools and the waste flakes from their manuf acture. This is true on many 9
,s - - - - m - - - -s r .
_-- . ,% ,- 301 g(fycz,i- - - e> _ _ _ c,_ _ m-w l wJ
_ ____... g n302- s s- " A-2 93,a,. s, 300
- w.
e-g. ,
4.
- 'r/ 257 191 " f.I .
]
e,. G. V' O h ,258lU.tf__ h. '
f, *y-
- c.y
- *
- 4., sg , j$ 267 ' ,'g' ' gff " #-.a, r
- te { T .*,2 e7Q M
t*~y{ .Gt?h, 90 t4 ,f,_p, s ,j t, . #'-15 I s r>F 276 g
, .: "' jht; ,,3 4 l g _
ggg,,3g i
'""~'eW]vitiT'; T' .. NM[ip hNg,**, [./ ,' N b '295
- 314 x "-
- 25 '
7 ,280 0) Sg,; /",,271 "ht g ,
l ?h el, # *'i **".*.*D.. g M,h. 270 g' h.g pI 313
. fly ' ,,.:.dEk.iN[** UM.,w f
o
@.94,.,, W 5 f[p[Tg -t.'I 3s .. 1268t y g.,%,%'h ~*
2-1 '
8 5,,1, -
vcs'456 l E85
.iPsg3 )'
4,.,.
A
,c g h- J.53cgN M,F O31D.fL -- *i s A-1 c.r'---
'& pi 4'
-y 'f g,.'.,'g. t
'Y
- 293 1;>q. Gan.* ;8 * * *
.;3
- m. [~'j'%{q.Sc'R fg:cQ,,g(?&
g , g
$...')30A
.dJf,;e g Q 303 w' i 8
\
-(' ,.
e
W3 306,,-~. % d,. A69 g , s ' T' ' l '*'6 (Z 5 ' -2'2D 'Q"A-11
'< h)Y278 ! ' si*
,'" b \E4 ! ,'
, NW* %1 s .
% e255' o : L
.j ". . . .. . . m ^\
< \* = A-Q)e%qf;-Q- % g.7 ) r -- - 3 A-9
.o- 251 , , , peaut 242 *
,11 -
\f ! 3$ :i f
s n.'
" i %
gf.
..'a i 2590mg. . % g.
2
.,b]lgr g f c -
n,w 5-
'I
- dm . 269
.. y,y[
j
,285 4 A*I7 l .
[ r[,,,h #.D
. .., . 7.',
r
- c. . . ,;
o (tXCLUhCirt
- Q7 b G 0 u 2,s-
'I'% 29- '~
g$$< 4 y; g gl ,xpa.Mi .gp MSllfY"?'e./.g&
for%
/ REY fem w' frd m'51
% s. , .j D 7EE - N#1 Y.N
{'U.?#'!N[hj<fjf!iM4/$,'/7,.e ' d ),
$$iQi = '4-<WfiN !
('d*l*ef'g,rs.c330*3,r*fje,?Di>l
- - s- *' -
"2 '
3 ! e:
L '/OWI<'.$
f,1 N "i Q.' k#. SMS
~
MAP 2 328 P ..I',W'"r"'- .
Cultural Resources and Land Use e
. (' - t, d~k Patterns on Residual Lands
- s'{ *
- ..a,,'
35 'I' /
~
. 33 +
ugs. ,
e4,%s t y& tss p . #- ^;2 -a s
- b ., 332 l[
w4 ., y, ,, .<
... s n,L s .
.,e.... .
news,ee Gaeie A es (Cava tyl f f.g.,,
e ,. ,
A]2b.. ' 'f i[{'
.... ( s t., noe.
t .e 6. e n e. (ca.ne,) or-.c 4 l ,
37 ###
noen to te cinee er me.. wise ;,,, .-m atw~# fNec r# 'rAccou /[ j g'[M, , M,W
.,e ee ,. e,na !_ _ _ . .
.s, .s ,, c 34 w -
- j*,}g ! [
P,eeeeet .guw.not , &
, Discharge.,. h. <NQ.- - .
_ _ . _ m ., i, ,,,, m .
_@ ;), g. ; N ,c3,,cyco zo ,c, a s ,~
T eered areas gpfr.1 ,. s C Phaert anta. eso acctss
- g. i... co
-, e.e.it.n s.,,z
,rw.
, ,,r
., r,,.,-/: ' f[. ' hb-.u['3f_.e
, _ - , ggag,,= accus er aegs ,t 1,.
1 I stuur astat oso Disvuesasset c twet aasiP sme'.r Ya.a 3 ac'e t ); A.1
,.
- m
, 4i i i ,,c, gu, ,,,,,,,,,T mt x, p t ,n anne ure.r Ta .s acre g 3, s . /
.- ne pieits ace.is 347 M 354', 'N -'
C recent $:,s. p -w " 359 1%;355 av,.., we a .3% W y " < >).
S pc.a itenc neen ie.sca) sitee P'* .'l .
356 Q(qy$ ;,/
-itene acea. i.ve.i sit.
. -...-...,s,.. .. , ,,c2 * , . _ , , ,,
Site Numbers ' \'44 I p* 350_.h.' Q. M
,, ' ':' 7 P mceded by 23 CY aw=eam. n >.
4 Table 1 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeolostcal Sites Located on Residos1 Lands Union Electric Company, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site Site See Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23CY- (Acres)
LEVELUPLANDPRAIRIE(n=41)
Agri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 242* 13 - Prehistoric / Knapping Exclusion zone 15 39.0 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 251 252* 15 8.0 Prehistoric /Knapptog Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
.15 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 253* 12 l
w 254 14 19.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l
~ Crop stubble l'
t 12.1 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l 255 11 Crop stubble 5.9 Middle-Late Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 256* 11 Archaic Crop stubble
- l. Limited Agri E11gible 257 1 14.8 Prehistortc/ H/ Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Historic Fabricating Crop stubble Processing
/ Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 258* 2 1.0 Prehistoric Crop stubble Historic Cemetery / Burial Cemetery Weeds, brush Avoid Not eligible 259 18 .1 ,
Legend: Sec - Section Number U - Unable to Evaluate + Limited Agriculture-see page 38 N -NonhabitationType(outbuildings) H - Habitation Avoid-see page 39 D -Discard (dump) * - Site with fewer than 10 Artifacts
- Noneligible designations are based on the results of the Phase I survey. There is the remote possibility that these sites may be eligible and are protected by the recomendations in this management plan.
4 l
Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use MRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitatfor.s+ Potential **
23CY- (Acres) 260* 13 - Prehistoric ,/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 261 13 1 Historic H Nonagri Forest, brush Avoid Eligible 267 2 8.2 Paleo Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited agri fall pless Eligible for surface collection ,
269 11 .5 Historic H Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 270 11 17.25 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Crop stubble g 271 11 1 Historic H Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible N
273 18 1 Historic H Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 274* 18 2.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 275* 2 2.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 276 3 2.5 Hist)ric H, N Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eltglble 277 10 .9 Historic Holland Cemetery Brush Avoid Not eligible Cemetery / Burial 278 10 1 Historic H Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 279 10 1 Historic H Nonagri Weeds, brush Subpiow zone disturbance Not eligible 281* 11 .1 . Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eitgible 285 14 1 Historic H Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 297 1 .3 Historic U Nonagri forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l
~
Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use 4 NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23CY- (Acres) 298 1 3.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 300 2 1 Historic H Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 301* 2 .6 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 302 3 .5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 303 10 14.8 Early Archaic Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food processing 308* 10 10.25 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 309 10 13.6 Late Archaic Camp / Knapping A;rt Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible w Hunting, butchering 311 11 23.9 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 312 11 1 Historic H Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 313 11 62 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 314 11 .25 Prehistoric Camp Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible
/ (feature Knapping) 315* 13 .7 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 319 14 Historic H Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 321 15 10.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food processing 4
1
s Table 1 (cont.)
Site See Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limita tions+ Potential **
23CY- (Acres)
PRAIRIE /FORESTEDGE(n=34)
Historic D Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible I 262 13 1 l
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l 263 7 1.4 Prehistoric i
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 264* 7 2.8 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 265 7 1.3 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 266* 18 .1 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible s 268 10 1.7 Prehistoric
& Hot eligible Prehistoric - / Knapping Agri Grass' Subplow zone disturbance l 272* 15 .75
/ Knapping Nonagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l 280* 10 .1 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 282 12 1.5 Prehistoric Law Cemetery / Burial Cemetery Forest, grass Avoid Not eligible 283 14 .5 Historic
/ Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 284* 14 .3 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Managri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 286 23 8 Prehistoric - Crop stubble
/ Knapping Honagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 290* 6 .75 Prehistoric 6 6 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible 291 Fabricating Processing i
- - _ , - - - .---.--i- -
i Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP
. No Size Affiliation Land Use Limi tations + Potential **
23CY- (Acres)
Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 292* 7 1 293* 7 .11 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 294* 7 12.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subploe zone disturbance Not eligible 295* 7 .15 Prehistoric / Chert procurement Nonagri Nothing Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Knapping 299 1 .1 Historic U Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 304 10 3.2 Late Woodland / Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited agri Eligible
- Nississippian Hunting ui Food processing Fabricating 305 10 .25 Historic U Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 306* 10 1.5 Prehistoric' / Knapping Nonagri Brush, grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 307* 10 1.2 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 310* 10 .3 Prehistoric / Knapping . Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 316* 13 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 317 13 .25 Historic U dgri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 5.6 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 318* 14 320* 14 1.5 Prehlstoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 4
1
- s I
Table 1 (cont.)
Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP Site See Approx Potential" No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations +
23CV- (Acres) 324* 23 .05 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 325* 23 05 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 327 23 .2 Historic H Nonagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 328 23 1 Late Archatc/ Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Early Woodland (btfacemanufacture)
Cutting, butchering 329 23 .5 Historic H Agri Grass Maintain present use Not eligible 23 .2 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Brush Maintain present use Not eligible g 330*
DISSECTEDUPLANDOAK-HICKORYFOREST(n=17) 296 18 .25 Historic H Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 322 22 4.5 Late Woodland / Camp / Knapping Monagri Weeds Limited Agri Eligible Mississippian ,
Hunting 323* 22 .15 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 326* 23 .5 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest. Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 331* 24 .3 Prehistoric / Knapping 'Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 332* 25 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 333 25 2 Historic H Nonagri Forest, grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 4
e f
. E Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23CY. (Acres) 334 25 1.1 Prehistoric Chert / Chert procurement Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible source Knapping 335 24/25 18.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not. eligible 336 25~ 5.75 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 337 25 - Historic / Rock pile Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 338* 25 2.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 339 25 .25 Historic H Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible 340* 26 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 341* 26 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 342 26 .1 Historic H Nonagri Weeds Subolow zone disturbance Not eligible 343* 26 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible DISSECTEDUPLAND/BOTTOMLANDFORESTEDGE(n=16) 20 35 7.4 Middle?/ / Knapping ljonagri Weeds Avoid Eligible l Late Woodland 74 35 .1 Middle?/ Mound / Burial? Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible Late Woodland 214 31 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 344* 35 1
=
l
l l
l l
l Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limita tions + Potential **
23CY- (Acres) 345 35 1.25 Middle Archalc7 Camp / Knapping Agri Grass Limited Agri Eligible .
Drilling 346 35 10 Dalton Camp / Knapping Agri Grass Limited Agri Eligible Hunting, butchering 347 35 1 Historic H Nonagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 348 35 .61 Historic H Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 349 35 2.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Nonagri Forest, brush Avoid Elfgtble ,
Food processing l
E 350 35 .1 Late Woodland Mound / Burial Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible l
351 35 5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Grass Limited Agri Eligible Food processing 352 36 6.2 Late Woodland / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food processing Hematite processing Pottery making Groundstone manufacture 353 36 8.4 Middle-La te Camp / Knapping pgri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Archaic Food processing Late Woodland 354 36 .25 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Monagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 355* 36 1.6 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
~
- l a e i e Pt l l Hn b b Re i g
i g 1 Nt o i i P l l E E 4
+ i i s r r en g g so a A Ui t d d da e e nt t dt ai i ii Lm i i m om vi L L AL t
r s e r e
v o o f C
d s s n s u d e a o
r e r G W G y
) te r
. ns e t eU t n s i r e o ed g m e
(
c rn A C ,
Pa L
1 e
l b
a T
g g n n i i s s s s e e y go c c t g go i nr i pl ni gn nrg v ipn i
p ail p i pditi pdt t
c aornl aon A nouur nou
/ KFBHD KFH e / /
p d y np py T um oa mr ae
_ e MC Ct t e m
_ i S e C
d c d a n i c n c e a aida t l hanl li at a d chad ra L o rc o ui - co Ar7 o y AeW
_ tl eiW
_ li l a l uf dhe l ede dct rtdt Cf ira aaia A MAL ELML
)
x s oee rzr 1 0 pi c 1 3 pSA A (
6 3
c 6 /
e 3 6 S 2
/
5 2
e Y t oC 6 9 iN3 5 5 S 2 3 3 G
ljlllI ll
s prehistoric archaeological sites, but it is especially 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 artif acts. The remaining 10 sites consist of 1 nonhabitation site (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 demolition and bulldozing at 15 sites. This activity has ef fected the archaeological Integrity at sites 23 CY 269, -271, -278, -279, -285, -297, -300, -319, -327, -329, ~347,
-348, -273, -276, -342. ,
Historical documentation and archaeological evidence indicate that the historic occupation period f or 19 of 29 sites ranged f rom 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 l
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 f armsteads 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.
, 20
(
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 substation. Barns and sheds are the most common l structures (14 each), while animal shelters number among the least common. Overall, the configuration of existing structures and ruins is
, typical of rural Missouri and the rural Midwest.
Evaluation of Site Stanfficance I
l PrahlstorIe SItas Conclusions regarding site significance are a major objective of
. all cuitural resources surveys and assessments. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for significance was applied to each of the sites recorded and has been presented previously (pg. 7). 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 ref erred to the Phase I report (Ray et al.1983). While the NRHP criteria are useful for many historic and historic architectural sites (e.g., a president's birthplace or a battiofIeld), they of ten are too general to estabiIsh clearly the potential significance of a prehistoric archaeological site or to justify Phase il 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-encompassing criteria by which archaeological sites can be centrally evaluated for state and local significance" (1981:25-26). Thus, significance is established through a process of recommendations to the SHP0 by recognized professional archaeologists which are then subject to review and evaluation by the SHPO.
( In order to initiate and facilitate this process, eight working criteria were employed by American Resources Group, Ltd., to evaluate potential NRHP eligibility of each of the prehistoric archaeological sites recorded on the residual lands. For 21
. the purposes of this evaluation, a site was considered potentia 1Iy eligible for the National Register of Historic Places if it exhibited one or more of the following attributes:
- 1. site appeared to of fer the potential to answer specific local or regional research problems.
- 2. site exhibited culturally diagnostic artif acts 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 iIttle 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 particular settlement system.
- 8. 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 Register 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 Reaf ster 1976:1595). These provide the field Investigator and the reviewer with specific guidelines with which to evaluate archaeological resources, justify recommendations of 22
additional research or no f urther research, and to make statements of I 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 following Interrelated factors:
- 1. Site f ailed 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 fewer waste flakes (35%), and 14 produced 10 waste flakes or fewer (18%) and no other evidence of prehistoric occupation. Small sites producing nothing more than a few waste flakes and lacking culturally diagnostic artif acts of fer little research potential or new data beyond site location Information.
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 f act 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 reccrnmendations 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, temporal considerations, and the availability of published sources of historic documentation other than tha archaeological record.
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 23
O g_ d
")
257 Cp 291 l
- .;. ... r t,
( .-
x .
!, c .; j ,
_ . . . N r.,i s _j, , ~ . . . t - i. f y c. L .
$ 'af j$ , , p k l l - " '
' "M,j
. *h- -[,
~
,/'
~t;co, ,: ,:.,%
. 4 e
^
, ,f~ \I , ,_
~
_ l F' ~~ ~
~
- m -3r 8 i! A $ - ,: \ 6n f /qVfLTi'p'I,1 a '
t i s . .
- - L -
1 j n \s ,
a l
P ' . 221 4
.. .i:-) .
s <;m.m
1
,} ~
'R; i.
w
't .
c q9 - . ..
pg
/ ,, .h . ,
[ - ]. ~ lr '% ,
_J .
L --
r- 1 I; iy f ;
,I w3 328 i 4-
-. .f. ,
y 0.>er stion si,' Main" nance Zones wW Signif1@ k Ll%ral Resources f-j;; 9
[
% h L' e- gy -
) ., ,
_.~1 ,
a 1_ tf E *sC , ! ;
~-
e: ,;__-
.a . . ., , .
m--
. m .
Is ,seN ew fe, Rese:
< a-,,
13 , .
l ;
, ,.,w
< ,, y << eco., ;
,m, .'
4sarn % e CJoes y A renes Fw A-* u dfo l
- e i wees s,., t
- ~ 'h - w& e & th au.rge , f
._ us .. c.~ v , m =
s- . c, ,
,j . , --
L'-9i
- "' f weg areas b a@ w .
8
- L. s , ~ ~m., -
p,,.
. '\
i, G;= yM ^- l/
j 9;
,gy. c.;.., on and maintenance zones
$$ t , % aric Artnacological site
]*] y r'
- .4 3#6' ,_. 3.= # , ', @ g ei Q 5.s :nric arenacological site i 345 g J d m.b-1 7-k u!"fe@i a $___;__34,i.355/h*3sz 7 3sc p~k. @"e.' ~ /3 b _2
,,. 2 (i ,-
% -%\ ,g s,e 't
'=="}
,cco, - r j
s j.-
pu
, l brief summary of each site is provided below. For more detailed
- discussions of these sites potentially eligible for nomination to the *i NRHP, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment report (Ray et al.1983).
2 23 CY 20.
I The site is a village or residential base camp and may be associated with either or both the large earthen mound (23 CY 74) and
- . Iow rock mound (23 CY 350) located on, top of the adjacent ridge system or the mound group (23 CY 356) on'the opposite ridge 700 m to the east.
Simila'r pottery sherds suggest 23' CY 20 is at least contemporaneous, if not af filiated 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 chart, probably procured entirely from stream depositwo cources, and , supplemented by Jefferson City chert, another locally occurring chert. The preference for Burlington chert may be due to its susceptibilliy and responsiveness to heat treatment. Over 50% of the Burlington artifacts at the site had been heat antered.
Based on reported materials from the site, Evans and Ives (1973:10) suggested the site is a multicomponent occupaf f on, spanning 10,000 years including a Middle Woodland component. However, the pottery recovered f rom the site, a Scallorn arrow polat, and other possible Woodiand artif acts (Evans 'and Ives 1979a:19) Indicate that the majcr occupation was probably Late Woodland (1500-1006 B.P.). The site's topographic setting indicates a high potential for buried cultural horizons (Map 2).
, 23 CY 74 .
The site is apparently .a ; b u r i a l mound and is probably representative of the Boone Phabe in central Missouri. The setting high I
on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with'the j 25 a
i k
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 1980:112t Denny 1964:158) which ranges f rom 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 7000-5000 B.P. (Chapman i 1975:242). Thus, the site is affiliated with the Middle Archaic period.
23 cY 25' The site is a field camp and knapping station with little evidence of long-term habitation. The high percentage (84.6%) gf flakes greater than 2 cm2 suggests an initial lithic reduction station, and the almost exclusive use of Burlington chert Indicates procurement of nearby chert 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 secor.dary decortication flakes concentrated at the head of a ravine. Also located were three large bif aces, one large preform, one mano, and a probable pla~tform preparation abrader; only the pref orm nu the platf orm preparation abrader were collected. It was l
noted that many of the secondary decortication flakes and one of the large bifaces ware knapped from stream deposited chert. The high '
percentage of secondary decortication flakes, the relatively high number of bIfacos (6 toral) for a smali fteld camp, the preform, and the
( platform preparation abrader all suggest the site was used primarily'for l
26 i
r initial reduction and biface manufacture. The f act that the majority of artif acts with cortex surf aces were knapped f rom stream deposited '
nodules suggests that most of the chart 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 Etiey 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 l
elemont. Because of this Etiey-Ilke projectile point / knife, a Late Archatc affiliatloa has been assigned to the site. The probable ,
platfora preparetion (or antier fIaker abrader) Is a sandstone siab, 12 x 18 cm, and exhibits two parallel, slightly sinuous grooves on one surface.
23 CY 267 The site is a small field camp and knapping (tation with no evidence of substantial habitation. Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 267 Indicates an almost exclusive use of local BurIIngton chert, mostly procured from stream deposits; however, the two Jefferson City flakes indicate transportation of that chert f rom at least 1.5 km
, distant. A fluted Clovis projectile point Indicates a Paleo-Indian occupation ca.12,000 B.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 cm2 indicates initial reduction litikic workshops. The artif actual
! data also indicate an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, i procured from both stream deposited and residual sources; how ever, the :
Jef ferson City flake Indicates transportation of that chert from approximately 1.8 km distant. The tool types suggest f abricating and processing activities. Cultural affIllation is unknown.
s 4
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 i suggested by the point base and serrated midsection is af filiated with the Early Archaic period (9000-7000 B.P.) and 'possibly continues into the Middle Archaic (Chapman 1975:253).
23 CY 304 i
. 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 reductions 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. s Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 304 Indicates a predominant utilization of Burlington chert, mostly procured from the nearby creek i
I bed. A smalI trIanguler arrow point recovered at the site is affiliated with the Late Woodland / Mississippi period which ranges from 1200-500 B.P. in the study area.
23 CY 309
, The slie appears to represent a seasonal or reoccupied field camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 309 4
Indicates a predominant use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposited sources. Activities other than flint knapping e
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 B.P.) and is a diagnostic artifact of the Booth assemblage and Culvre River ceremonial complex in northeast Missouri (Chapman 1975:246).
s 28
3 23 CY 314 .
The site is probably a small field camp and knapping station with ,
one and possibly two features visible on the surf ace. The feature (s) may be a simple fire heefth(s) or possibly chert heat treatment pit (s).
j The heat-altered chert was exclusively Burlington chert 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, chart procurement was predominantly from the closer Burlington sources.
However, one-third of the artifacts were made from Jef ferson City chert located at least twice as far 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 cf secondary decortication flakes and flakes in general'with dimensions greater than 2 cm2 (61.3%) Indicates initial Ilthic 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 for Burlington chart. Both stream deposited and residual chert sources were utilized.
23 CY 328 The site is a small field camp and knapping station lacking ,
evidence of permenent habitation. The artifactual evidence indicates bifacial tool manufacturing, probably for cutting and butchering purposes. A corner-notched, hafted tool is probably affiliated with the Late Archalc/Early Woodland transition period, which ranges from 4000-2500 B.P. In the study area.
29
i
. l 23 CY 334 l The site is a chart procurement and primary reduction knapping station with no evidence of habitation. The presence of 53 cores, the near absence of worked / utilized crtif acts, the f act that 67.5% of the flakes recovered were decortication flakes, and that 85.9% were greater 2 2 than 2 cm 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 4
ridge. Thermal protreatment was also unnecessary due to the inherent fine-grained nature of the chert. The artifactual evidence supports a
~
nearly exclusive use o.f this residual Jef forson City chert source.
Cultural af fillation is unknown.
23 CY 345 Tne site is a small field camp and knapping station. The haf ted drill 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 af filiation for the site based on the hefted drill is Middle Archaic (7000-5000 B.P.).
23 CY 346 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. A chert 1 analysis of the artifacts from 23 CY 346 Indicates a selection for and predominant utIIIzation of Burlington chart, 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 or finishing / resharpening on '
- the site. Activiiles other than flint knapping suggested by tool types
Include hunting and butchering. The three Callaway chart flakes, all
! found in one shovel test, Indicate some use, although minimal, of this scarce chert known to occur 6.5 km away. -
30
A Dalton point recovered at the site represents the transitional i' period between Paleo-Indian and Archaic times or Late Psloo/Early ,
Archaic, p.eriod ca. 10,600-9000 B.P. (Chapman 1975:96; Goodyear 1982).
Dalton points have been found in situ in the earliest levels of nearby Arnoid Research Cave and Graham Cave (Chapman 1975:24$).
. 23 CY 349 The site is probably a reoccupied camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities. The analysis of the chart sample from 23 CY 349 Indicates a heavy reliance on or preference for Burlin'gton chert, probably procured from local redeposited scurces, over readily available residual or stream deposited Jef ferson City chort.
This small habitation site may be associated or af filiated 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 flint 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 Bocn.e Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and burials do I sometimes occur under stone cairns (Denny 1964:141). The Boone Phase is I largely confined within the lower Missourt Valley Locality ll (Chapman !
1980:112; Denny 1964:154), and it is fIrmiy af filiated wIth the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:158).
23 CY 351 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 artif acts from 23 .
CY 351 Indicates a predominant use of and preference for Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from redeposited sources, over readily 31
available , residual or stream deposited Jef ferson City chert. Most of the limited amount of Jef ferson City chert that was used probably came from residual sources. One-f ourth of the Burlington artif acts were thermally altered, wherea"s only two flakes knapped from Jef ferson 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 af filiation 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) atop the adjacent ridge.
Similar pottery sherds suggest 23 CY 352 is at least contemporaneous if not af filiated with 23 CY 20, another village site located on a similar terrace 500 m to the west. Activities suggested b'/ the tool types and debitage include secondary, but predominantly tertiary, flint knapping and tool maintenance, the manuf acture of groundstone tbis, 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 i major component at 23 CY 352 is probably af filiated with the Late l Woodland period and may be associated with the Boone Phase of central l and east-central Missourir suggested dates range from 1500-1000 B.P.
Both Boone Piain and Moreau or Boone Cord Marked pottery types are l
- identified as Bcone 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 pcttery types probably are associated with Late i
, Woodland peopies (Chapman 1980:280-281). AlI four pottery typas are l found primarily in the Lower Missouri Valley 11 Locality (Chapman l
1980:276, 280-281, 289). The site's location on an alluvial terrace i suggests a high potential for buried cultural deposits. -
32
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 utilizetion of Burlington chart (71%), probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role (29%)
for Jefferson City chert. Even among the Jef ferson City chert that was used, there was a tendency to procure it from nearby stream deposited sources rather than from residual sources.
2 l
Examination of the debitage suggests primary, secondary, and tertiary reduction on the site. Activitter other than filnt knapping I
~
suggested by tool types laclude hunting and butchering, hide processing, 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 predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupat' ions. Although possibly inhabited during the Early Archaic period, the major components suggested by the surf ace colIect!on tentativaly have been affIllated with the Midstle 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.
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 Lite. Five low earthen mounds 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 l l
33 i
I
_ .- _ y -
-- ,-- --v -.
e , .- - - - - - - - m-- -m -- - - - + -
. - . . .. . . - - . =_ -
hunting and butchering, drilling, plant food processing, and human burial. Twenty-two bif acial thinning flakes indicate a fair amount of bif ace manuf acture/ maintenance, and at least three pieces of fire-cracksd 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 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 Big Sandy-like points represent styles which may have persisted into the Late Archuic period.
The major component at 23 CY 356 is af f iliate~d w ith the. Late Woodl and period (1500-1000 B.P.) and may represent a manifestation of the Boone Phase in east-central Missouri. The setting high on a bluff overlooking ths Missouri River Yalley is consistent with the location of
- Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and the mounds are sometimes constructed entirely of eertti (Chapaan 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 Rico Side Notched, Steuben Expanded Stemmed, and Scallorn Corner Notched projectile points found on the site I
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 preliminary reconnaissance, it is evident that the site is probably a f seasonal camp and knapping station. Although the small selective sample '
I is biased toward tools, there was no bias in cc,llecting artifact chert types. A chert analysis indicates that there may have been a preference 34 O
for making tools out of Burlington chert since all of the projectile I points and all but one biface were knapped from this fossiliferous '
chert. Activities other than filnt knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering and plant food processing.
The diagnostic artif acts Indicate the site is multicomponent with predominantly Archa!c and Woodland occupations. The side-notched point tentatively identified as Graham Cove 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 arrow point is a Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) point type (Chapman 1975:312).
Significant Historie Archaeoloolent Sites identifying potentially significant historic archaeological sites which date from the mid nineteenth to early twentieth centuries is dif ficult at this time. Many states are !n the process of preparing state management plans: and, when this is completed, historic research problems which might be answered through arci.aeological research during this time span will be forthcoming. The State of Missouri is working on such a plan; and, when it is available, 17 will provide a research framework which will fccilitate the evciuation of Individual historic sites.
As Indicated earlier, many of the former homes and f armsteads in 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 of fer some potential for further archaeological and historical research.
Site 23 CY 261 is an undisturbed homestead in the upland prairie 35 i
zone. The artif act 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 the early twentieth century. This was a period of rapid change in central Missouri, and the apparent undisturbed nature of the deposits may of fer an opportunity to study this change in the archaeological
~
record.
~
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). i The site's unique location on a rocky hillside poses Interesting historical research questions.
HIs-lxie ArchItactural SIten When measured against the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, the historic architectural sites and features do not appear to represent a signficant level of innovation,* uniqueness, or artistry. While they may be potential candidates for preservation, they
- 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 imoacts Protecting and preserving cultural resources from a variety of destructive activities stimulated by an expanding society is f undamental 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 (Schif fer and House 1975). Direct impacts are usually major land altering activit?es carried ~out in conjunc' tion 36 6
-l with road, reservoir, pipeline, stock pond, and landfill construction, "l' to mention just a few. The ef fect of such activities on fragile,~ non-renewable cultural resources is obvious and of ten decisive. There are direct impacts that are much less destructive than these major 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 areas are examples of direct !mpact 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 degrees of adverse of f acts to cultural resources; however, a new road 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 ef fect other archaeological sites. The construction of equestrian or hiking trails on the residual lands would have ilttle or no direct adverse Impacts to cultural resources, yet, potential Indirect adverse impacts could be high due to increased pubile exposure to archaeological sites. For example, a hiking trail near the prehistoric mound (23 CY 74, Map 2) would increase the opportunities for vandal ism, malicious looting, or uninformed collecting. Some examples of potential Indirect impacts might include increased publIc usage of i all recreational facilities on the residual lands, soll erosion on !
f archaeological sites, and timber harvesting.
t l Examination of these potential impacts serves to point out the need i 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. I s
37
Generally, the current land use management plan which emphasizes wildlife management and recreation is compatible with the needs of cultural resources management. Potential adverse impacts from cultivation, erosion, trail construction, picnic grouads, silviculture, a 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 ef fects to the site. The various types of land use restrictions and limitatlons will be central to the
\ specific management recommendations.
Manacement Rece-nendations and Guldal Ines The key management elements with regard to the prehistoric 'and historic archaeological sites which will be of primary concern to Union i
Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation wIII be 4
current land use, land use Ilmitations, and the statement of potential National Register eligibility.
The four primary types of lar.d 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, l 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 1
j and ground cover notations (Table 1) reflect conditions at the time of )
survey in the fall and winter of 1981. !
' l For management purposes, land use recommendations consist of three l
types of Iimitations: (1) subplow 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 30
el'Igible for nomination to the National Register but will be protected N by the recommendations in this management plan. Avoidance requires that a site's surface 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 il testing of potentially eligible sites identified during the Phase i survey to further evaluate National Register eligibility (Welchman 1979). Only two potentially eligible sites (23 CY 20, 23 CY 352, Table 2) are located in an area of noten+Ini_ environmental impact related to the operation and maintenance of the plant or associated f acil i ties, the completion and submission of nomination forms for each potentially eligible site will be deferred until a potentially significant site is actually threatened. In the interim, the 25 sites Idtentified as potentially eIIgible for nomination to the National Regtstor of Historic Places wIII be protected from adverse impact by placing a conservative protection boundary zone around each site. The protection bound'ary wilI range from 50 m to 100 m depending upon site specific circumstances. For example, at many sites, the boundary stakes are set along the fence line even though the artif act distribution is well out in the field.
Limited agriculturo can continue at potentially significant sites presently being used for agricultural purposes. Limited agricultural activity with reference to potentially significant archaeological sites permits shallow discing to allow the sowing of grass seed. The rationale for this recommendation is threefold. First, these sites are often surrounded by major row crop areas and to allow brush and forest i vegetation to return could be i nconvenienY to other agricultural $
activities. Second, if the sites are allowed to return to a natural state and at a later date require Phase ll testing, the removal of lirush -
s 39 4
- - . - , , - - - -,.---,.m,,, ,, n , - , . , , , , , , , .,,,n. -.-,.n.,.,,,m.--n ,.w.., -, m _e, a- ,,,e- ,.-w , ,,,.,
s Table 2 Management Recomunendations for Potentially Significant Sites ,
Cultural Ground Ow er Land Use Cultural Resources Management Site size Location Affiliation Limitations + Recomunendations*
Mo (Acres) 23CV-20 7.4 SEl NW1. SWI. 535' Middle Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase !! If threatened '
Earth moving assoc with O&M prohibited ,
74 .1 SW1. NWI. SEl. 535 Middle-Late
- Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II. If threatened t Burial mound 256 5.9 NEl. SEl. SEl. 511 Middle Archaic Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened 257 14.8 SEl. W 1. SEl. $1 Late Archaic Brush, crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened 267 8.2 W 1. SW1. SW1. 52 Paleo-Indian Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II tf threatened
- 291 6.0 W1. NW1. SWI Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened NEl. NEl. SEl. S6 303 14.8 SEi. SEl. 510 Unbown Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened 304 3.2 NW1. NWI. SEl. 510 Late Woodland Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened Mississippian 309 13.6 El. NW1. NEl. 510 Late Archaic Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened 314 .25 NEl. NEl. MEl 511 Unknown Crop , Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened 321 10.5 NEl. SWI. NEl. 515 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 f f threatened 322 4.5 SW1. NEl NEl. S22 Late Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase !! If threatened Mississippian 328 1.0 MW1. SW1. SEl. 523 Late Archatc? Crop Lietted Agri Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened
+ Limited Agriculture-see page 38 Avoid-see page 39
- 0&M-operation and maintenance t
n -- - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - -
e Table 2 (cont.)
$1te Size Location Cultural Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resources Management No (Acres) Afflitation Limitationst- Recommendatior.s*
23CY-034 1.1 St. NW1. NEl 525 Unknown Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II if threatened t
345 1.25 St. SEl. NEl Middle Archafe Grass Limited Agri Preserve.
Phase II if threatened NEl NEl SEl $35 346 10.0 Nl W1. SE1 Early Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve.PhaseIIjfthreatened SEl. SW1. NEl 535 Dalton 349 2.5 WI W 1. SEl 535 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II if threatened 350 .1 SW1. NW1. SEl. 535 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II if threatened Burial mound?
M 351 5.0 WI. NEl. SE1 , Unknown Grass Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened NEl NEl SEl. 535 352 6.2 NW1. NEl SW1 Middle and Late Croo Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened NEl. NW1. SW1. 536 Woodland Earth moving assoc with 08M probibited 353 8.4 El NEl, NW1. S36 Middle and Late Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened Archaic 356 11.0 Nt. NEl. SW1 Middle Archaic Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened SEl. SEl NW1. 536 Late Woodland -
359 30.0 WI NW1. S36 Middle Archaic Grass , Close upper road to Preserve. Phase II if threatened Late Woodland prevent erosion; Avoid 261 1.0 NEl. NEl NW1. $13 Historic Grass Limited Agri Pt.ase II evaluation if threatened 339 1.0 SEl. SEl NWI. S25 Historic Forest Avoid Phase II evaluation if threatened O
k v a- W i l . , pi,
and trees would be expensive and harmful to the site. Third, the sites could be used for hay ' production and grazing without adverse ef fects 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 f acilitate the management j i
objectives of Union Electric Company.
To insure the identification and preservation of sites potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP, nietal reinforcing rod stakes have been placed at the corners of all sites along field edges. Boundaries which fall within agricultural fleids (pastures) are marked with wooden lath to avoid damaging f arm machinery. All stake tops are sprayed with orange paint and marked with yellow plastic flagging.* The boundaries are placed approximately 50 m to 100 m beyond site Ilmits to provide a proper buffer zone.
- 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 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 Ilmited agriculture is recommended (Table 2).
- 3. Coordination wIth the Environmental Services Department of Union Electric Company should occur well in advance of any land use s 42 -
I
~
, activities outside those found in Table 1 which may affect the l potentially significant sites. The Environmental Services Departmont will insure identification of site boundaries, will establish buf fer 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 t'hreatened by adverse impacts (Table 2). ,
- 5. The architectural sites on the residual lands are not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and are no,t 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
( i.e., f arm ing) may occur at these sites but subplow zone activity is permitted only after consultation with the proper authorities.
- 7. For planning and management purposes, a USGS topographic map precisely locates all the cultural resources on the residual lands, if there is any question regarding the exact location of a site, the
, Environmental Services Department should be contacted.
- 8. There is the possibility that sites 23 CY 20, 23 CY 352, and 23 CY 353 contain buried cultural occupations. The Environmental Services Department should be aware of this, and f uture 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 will be instructed to notify the Environmental Services Department immediately. !.
The Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment of the Callaway residual. lands along with the several other survey, and 43
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.
8 e
- r. l l
I l
l 44 I
c l
REFERENCES i e
Chapman, Carl H.
1975 The archaeology of Missourt. 1. University of Missourl Press, Columbia.
1980 The archaeology of Missourt. 11 University of Missourl ,
Press, Columbia.
Comptroller General, of the United States 1981 Are agencies doing enough or too much for archaeological _
preservation? Guidance needed. Recort to the Chairman.
Enemittee of Interior and Insular Affairs. House of Renrementatives. UL S. Goverment Accounting Office Report CED-81-61. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Denny,' Sidney G.
1964 'A re-evaluation of the Boone Focuss a late Woodland manifestation in central Missourt. Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri.
Evans, David R.
1975 Proposal for mitigation of impact on archaeological site 23 CY 20. 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 23 CY 20: recommendations. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
1973 initial archaeological sorvav of the oronosed Union
- Electric Comnany Nuclear Reactor near Reform. Callaway Countv. Missourt. Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia.
1978 A cultural resources survey of the proposed Union l Electric Company 345KV transmission line right-of-way, l Callaway and Montgomery counties, Missouri. Ms. on f ile, -
Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
l 1979a 23 CY 20 the creservation olan for an archaeological sita.
Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia. ?
I 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 il e, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
45 l
Federal Reafster 1976 Rules and regulations 41(6):1595. ~
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 - The chronological position of the Dalton horizon in the southeastern United States. American Anticultv 47(2):382-395.
King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg 1977 Anthronology on historic Dreservatlon. carino for culture's 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.
McNerney, Michael 1982 Cultural resources assessment of proposed borrow pits 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 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. McNerney, Edward Morin, R. Gall White, and Kurt R. Moore 1983 A phase I cultural resources survey and assessment on residual lands at Union Electric Omnpany's nuclear power plant, Callaway County, Missouri. Cultural Resources Management Reoort $52. American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
t
, Schif fer, Michael B., and John H. House (assemblers)
- 1975 The Cache River archaeological project
- an experiment l In contract archaeology. Research Series $8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Jonesboro.
l Tucker, Patrick M., and Edward M. Morin.
1981a A cultural resources survey and assessment of the Sanitary Landfill Area, Oallaway Nuclear Power Plant Site, Callaway County, Missouri. Cultural Resources Management Recor+ # 50, American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
46 l
I 1981b A cultural resources survey and assessment of the Emergency Operational Facility, Callaway Nuclear Power
( Plant Site, Callaway County, Missourt. Cultural
, Resources Mannaement Reoort # 51, American Resources, Group, Ltd., Car.bondale, Illinois.
{
Welchman, Michael S. .
1979 Guidelines for renortino ohnse ll testino ni archaeoloalcal sits sfonfficance and evaiyation of National Reoister allolbilftv. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Natural Resources, Jef ferson -
City, Missouri.
{
e 47 ,