ML20091D424
| ML20091D424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1983 |
| From: | Mcnerney M AMERICAN RESOURCES GROUP, LTD. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091D418 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405310216 | |
| Download: ML20091D424 (51) | |
Text
. . . ._ . _ .____ _ _ .. _ _ ______ . _. ____ _ _ ___--_ ___.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J O
i A Cultural. Resources Management Plan 1
for Residual Lands at the Union, Electric Company i Nuclear Power Plant
. Callaway County, Missouri t
Prepared for l
Union Electric Company 1
X
'lO By i American Resources Group, Ltd.
Carbondale, IIIinois Principal Investigator and Author
! Michael J. McNerney I
i t
- j. I I
L
?
i l
8405310216 840523 October 1983 O' PDR AD?CK 05000483 D PDR
_ __ _.__ .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . .._ _ ~ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
-%s y:
\
U 1;
1=
ABSTRACT
- \
i A cultural resources management plan based on a Phase I cultural ?
i
~ resources survey and assessment (Ray et al.1983) on 5,848 acres of ,
I' : residual lands at the Union Electric Company Nuclea'r Power Plant, located in Callaway County, Missouri, is presented. '
A total of 129 cuitural resources sites was Identifled and evaluated during the Phase I survey and assessment: 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21
- architectural sites. Twenty-three prehistcric archaeological sites are i recommended as potentially eligible for nomination to the National l
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 prehist'oric and historic archaeological sites are ;
I not considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places; however, the sites will be protected from subplow ::one disturbance.by this management plan.
- o]
.i i I
- l J p i
!O
- i J. l
_ _ __ _ __ . _ a
{ s.'p ,
i O ,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The entire staf f at American Resources Group, Ltd., would like to thank the personnel of Union Electric Company Environmental Services t
Department,~ Nuclear Engineering Department, and Real Estate Department for their cooperation and. assistance throughout the project. Special thanks to Mr. David J. Wambold for his patience, perseverance, and good-nature'd cooperation. Additionally,' we 'would like to thank our professional consultants during this project: Dr. Dal e R. Henning, consurting archaeologist, and Dr. George Fraunf elter, consulting geologist /geomorphologist. ,
/
I O L
\
l f.
\
s
\
t 1
k
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
' (_,/ Abstract . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . til List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Current and Future Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cultural Resources Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Summary of Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
.t Evaluation of Site Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Potential Adverse impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Management Recommendations and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
[;\ References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
%./
LIST OF FIGURE 5
- 1. Site Identification Marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 LIST OF M'PS
- 1. Operation and Mai ntenance Zones. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 2. Cultural Resources and Land Use Patterns on Residual Lands . . 10 4
- 3. Operation and Maintenance Zones with Significant Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 s
LIST OF TABLES
- s.
- 1. Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sit 45 La ste3 on n 't ,
Residual Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. ...... 11 it[,
// 2. Management Recommendations for Potentially f",' , Significant Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
~y ill
wg
. g A CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
< .FOR RESIDUAL LANDS AT THE UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI Introduction This management plan and the Phase I cultural resources survey (Ray et al.1984) upon which it is based represents-Union Electric Company's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1%6 (P.L. 89-L665) and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the n i Cultural Environment). Completion of the Phase I survey and accompanying management plan also provides documentation evidencing
, , United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission compliance with the Advisory Council _on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties), and v.'her . appl icabl e f ederal 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.1984). The primary objective of the Phase I survey and assessment was to locate, evaluate, and I.dentify potentially significant cultural resources; and i the primary purpose of the management plan is to provide guidance for the preservation of potentially significan't cultural resources. The Missouri 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
- diverse, high-quality natural environment which will provide recreational activities such as fishing, controlled hunting, nature i
l O .
1
~ - <,w,- e m-.. ..n,..--~nn en,--- ,n, --.-+,,--_-n.,,- .- ..w . -.,-------,,.,--,n ,-- --- ,,,.. ,..-n - ., _ ,, - - -
n study, and other compatible activities the Company may wish to
/ \
V. Incorporate. The cuitural resources management plan wiII supplement the i existing land use management plan and will be used by the Company and the Missouri Department of Conse.v nion 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
[]
8.s 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 identified during the Phase I survey, and a discussion of direct and indirect adverse impacts. The second part of the report provides a discussion of the National Register nomination process and guidance for implementation of the management plan.
Current and Future Land Use There are two general types of land use areas at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant site, operation and maintenance areas and wildlife management areas (residual lands). Activities associated with each of C 2
I the two areas are different and thus require di f ferent cuitural resources management approaches.
[v ' Operation and maintenance zones include electrical transmission
!!nes, heavy haul road, settling ponds, railroad spur, quarry, waterlines (underground), emergency operations f acility, meteorological tower, landfill area, borrow pits, and ecology plots (Map 1).
Activities in these areas would include insp,ection, repair, maintenance, monitoring, and, in the case of the borrow pits, earthmoving. Cultural resources surveys and assessments have been completed and reviewed by the MSHP0 at all of these operation and maintenance locations (Evans ,
1975, 1979; Evans and Ives n.d., 1973, 197 8, 197 9 a, 1979b; McNerney 4
1982; Tucker and Morin 1981a,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 to mitigate the impacts of railroad construction at site 23 CY 20 (Evans 1975; Evans and Ives 1979a). Therefore, with regard to future cultural V resources management decisions within operation and maintenance zones, consideration must be given to the f act that (1) all areas have received survey and assessment, (2) all areas have been impacted by previous construction activity, and (3) all cultural resources sites which are within the operation and maintenance zones (23 CY 20, 23 CY 352, and 23 CY 359) 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 facilitate this management plan include forest habitat (5,251 acres), fishing ponds (10 ponds over one-hal f acre), crop Iands (2,480 acres crop and pasture),
access roads, hiking and equestrian trails, parking lots, and picnicing J 3
,Ig. .. ,--- --.- .y. :L. 7.,g.-o m.
w o _9.m ,
i a
, 4.,-
i.
o i ./ h v o (m) c;: ' x :. : , ,
.' ./ , .S;- ,[i ..; p.
- m. ,,4. -
.my.s g .
. . ,p ..
"' 6 ' * , l l12_KV Construction Power Lines ,
e i
! Construction Power Substation - i{ .10
' s ." ? - l
.. ~! 'L / 8 i .. 4 M. . l,
- I
'_,N. , gM.,..
Mine/ Quarry l s 'i
- e g
,% 345 KV Transmission Linel
, , I %. ? ~ !!: a <
_w- U' f.f TU J l .
l r j % ' ,jsettling PonM , Heavy Haul Road l
--n
% > ,/
l t '
..- Os, ,, . . , -: 12 KV Construction Power Lines l g4 , .
6 c' .
O
.g h
. . , _ , ,n...... .
W '
G
,Piant Site , f l Emergency Operations Facility!q ' , i, t iProposed Borrow Pitsj 6 s t w vi
. *,( /. .p -
Il w
. 9
' *4
/ h.t,f .iSanitaryLandfil5) .
! !. .n_
- .'.. - .I ./ % .s;j g i : t/ ,, c
/r E XCt.usiON
hk F *ZONG l . ,.
t T**** \. . . 5-hl 4,,4 345 KV Transmission Line . -
. : y , ,
< 1 i . 1 ,
O + ]FutureSludgeDisposalSysteml I ) c, N"- 6 h' I f
[ %EcologyPlotl ,
'r'
- . g,f x f
113.8 KV Feeder Linel . .
I
'3 ,
L
!345 KV Transmission Linej f f.
j
. .z-. 'N
. l Heavy Maul Road k ~.
- ' e ' ' '
as e L . !? !
MAP 1 1 !) J. ,
Operation and Maintenance Zones E.
,: . ;) 9 j[ Railroad Sourl '.., ' ' (
tfGEND 5i.
< - -) .-
- c. g 9 IereFF LW
[
~ , ~ . . ... c .
. ; , i ec.co.4 Grhe ao.es (cued h n- ; ,g . -]
,j L Wx,, '
- - c uq e
- c.#g c,= c n.a. (cui,i
- r.,e.n.
--< ' ,a-}:: .
'g s_.-
.sses e.ess is Be Ossed er As .med a for NMc Access ea /
a.,en.g sp., f
- e. .=*.=,ao.icurp l i .! [
l
-a- m av tve. L.ae. 200 new ' .
-* /
$ setf.eR (F.Gr .
~ ' t.n.seren Arr.s s e.i ,.r. ec p sem swi 1 $@' '
N.
- M we co sw.ca sen zeaes
. ~..= (.:ch. x
-r o twe Pees smew % 3 acre ,
\. .
Ir; / /
e p twas estar:w w s Acre i(* -;
b ,-
F///J Operation and Maintenance Zones ..,
- s
.. 4 ,3,9 g ' g
's.
, /) ,p ' / \
- l. p }_k 1(
.h'Q O) y v i . ..e .. =a+ ""5 _%
e
\ j
' ' # ~'
ischarge Pipeline l
g
. -. n a.r ,
M 5,IntakePipeline[ *
,,s!
- puvtje scCESS UMT 4
f
[3 v
areas. A visitor's Interpretive center also has been proposed (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976). Potentially significant cultural resources within wildlife management and agricultural zones will be protected by this management plan.
Cultural Resources Manacamant Cultural resources constitute a fragile, limited, nonrenewable portion of the total environment. Because they are ihe physical legacy of various stages of past human lifeways, they are illustrative of man's cultural development. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and hl: toric 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 !
O G
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, 1 buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance. More recently, the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (1%6),
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 avol' dance.
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 j b
V dimensions of cultural resources management in an entire volume. While 5
. . ._ ._~_ _ _ ..-_._. -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ ~
i I
n 1 many nonspecialists are required to evaluate reports and to make V decisions about cultural resources, these persons of ten do not have the time nor the inclination to review the growing body of literature on the subject. For the present purposes, a brief review of the idea in the form of a working definition 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 cuiturally 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 primary practitioners of the discipline are anthropologists and archaeologists (requiring a variety of supporting specialists in the physical and natural sciences), historians, and architectural historians. Other V 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 i assessment: the review of previously recorded resources, the location and inventory of unrecorded resources on the landscape, the assessment of the significance of the resources, and the assessment of potential adverse impacts which may threaten the resources. These are the major considerations ordinarily addressed in a Phase I survey and assessment.
O A central issue during this phase and throughout the management process r
d 6
(
l r
is the determination of significance. The evaluation of significance
. (mU) includes the collection and analysis of artif acts f rom archaeological sites, shovel tests or soll probings to determine the vertical and horizontal limits of the site, and the evaluation of architectural sites
( for historic significance.
Next, a conclusion regarding the significance of the site is offered by the investigator. This conclusion is based on the evaluation of the results of the survey and the National Register of Historic Places criteria for significance. The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources ,
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
/q districts, sites, buildings, integrity of location, design, b; . setting, materials, workmanship, f eeling, and association, and:
(1) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (2) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (3) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack Individual distinction; or (4) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Federal 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 Of ficer in consultation with the agencies involved. The State Historic Preservation Of ficer (SHPO) is a state of ficial appointed by the governor whose job it is to insure that O the cultural resources of the state are not destroyed arbitrarily and to
, V 7
7 make recommendations to proiact 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 f or. listing in the National Register, the matter goes no f urther and the properties may be altered. If the agencies and the SHPO agree that.the properties are eligible, or if they cannot agree, or if some question exists regarding the eligibility of the nominated properties, final determination of eligibility rests with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, a multicomponent of fice within the National Park Scrylce, the core unit of which is the ;ational Register of Historic Places (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.
FoiIowIng the identification and assessment phase of the cuitural resources manageme'nt process, land use limitations are of fered which are designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicated earlier, I cultural resources are fragile, limited, nonrenewable portions of the natural and cultural environment; any direct land altering activities
- -(i.e., roads, reservoirs) or indirect impacts (i.e., increased public
- j. use of an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the I
site. These potential impacts or adverse ef f ects are evaluated, and l'
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 management process including: a definition of cultural resources, a ,
summary definition of cultural resources management, a discussion of 1
g significance, and key concepts of cultural resources management. These
!) b 8
l _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . , . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ .
concepts will serve as a framework within which to develop a cultural O resources management plan for the residual lands.
(Q Sn- ev 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 research Inf ormation, the reader is referred to the cultural resources report (Ray et al.1984).
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 filiation was established f or 17 (21.5%) sites.
O 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 araa.
Sites in the prairie and prairie forest edge, currently in agricultural production, are characterized by widely and spar,sely distributed scatters of waste chert fIakes. OccasIonalIy, elusters of fIakes and tool fragments mark a location where more time was spent manuf acturing or maintaining stone tools.
The most common artif acts recovered at all sites were chipped stone tools and the waste flakes from their manuf acture. This is true on many 3 (m - ,
I T.. "? ~ V!- x, c'4 ;e 29 m.m ;...
,.,,.6 - - - - - - ,2.#j d
-_8A-b'g* - Q,u )." ~300Zc'1 1-3 pg,7 .'- V/ 257 -h. (!'"M D "7.
Cr 291l 'C (^.7 ~8*
.a j W ;;;3022. {,f yu g;.t:.&
a.: ,L O .
' * , . A, . -Q: .e f %it 267a 'd ' er ' a.:q_ )
258 l 7 1
G q.
{J-g p27 h',299~-}.; #1
, M75 p 9Q N._ 'l $~ .'276 }g i
-f / a 8
_ M .sA.4 h Np 3 3 f $ ss A _;%,'W'-M /_
P NYI77 9 309 ..
'*) b 9271 @^
324
' s 25 5
. --wa
/ Nhhk' IT k s J -NW V
?
e' 8 s.:['t280 i 4,,3M>. ~m.
Of 9 s
' M'** 'WD M"TN . ,';;:14 e .,.
f*^5;$ 0 ,: h.w' y j, ? o 270 mas'h' 9 $Pa 313 g 5 '
' v
- ".*. e,.,v 7-Ilj'e'2 s x.gV, ,7 .,,,,0.
A V'.b' ..m-> 294 d"; ? -
a
- a.1268 e - y8
~ 6- r-
?i:*456 :, -..r8ag4 g.e +.;4- s.
+
8 :f,A lC:s In6 ;, , e.+%=W,.$.*
%'ao$VA,r,30gWW' "^ M":-OL#y < l A-1 'r,- <, ?.:Lm'@., - .9* 293 f '
4 h.u. amois. ' . 4 ,
't i
.q. 3Nd 25$
~ ~ '2'79's '.f M7
,'30 @'304' '*[k T- k hN. h282 . 263eN" /[ l{ sk 92
'Y(d'
!$ k 1 303 E' 269 , d , ,' -7 ((65* ' k4'd8 A-ll A
e
%sht>c. ye ; iqg.g g255,. o\ .ob
- W> / :%'q8
- t. y .ko. b v.q)i g !
s 9Q% N
' 2 7 2' ,'c 4 -
e - . . - ~ 1
-- - - - .?. -..-----m
~._" a 4 . . . . . .\
1
[ M y.- < 242 , ; I A-9s],3,,,,Y 1 % A.7 251
) c. pt .m
}3p5 s r,.
p7 ,11~ }
f b' h2 ,e ] .. . . g
-e I 2598
. ..,. . , . n.e'Y , . , '.,-,d . .
26{ . 273 y,ga ~ ".p>r.,
A- 10.5 .f./.,
's f *.
~
- e ' : ;; /<.M.w.-
,n-
, .ws .-
.269.~..,,I
.. - . .~ .*f , v.?,
Q,hfe.4y.4,2s5 %_ 4 A-17 i / h e, **;'%.S E
, Arf l80 'vg
'ey 283 k
g h )I
-- /
C IEfzg,pdev'jf,E,,.,,:in$
vn7 %;%
i as >< 5 N,f*f9.hh"5* 3ff '
Gehls "
/ .
'- f'c.i.{r: ,51 !)2) '
/ *' n s.?> 7 W.,r, ' ' *:Lc 'N;#v;;;,!P'~. '- h -i' y;.4ff'dQ' n
'n\h.r. gt
!<f -- - :
,y< ?;w y'; m.%CQ.*% -a A n A.s g .
y > .
52, [ ',*, dE ; I ', .
,' ,f322 5. , /, h 3 '
s r 4!n :
/
~_ /
) '
,,n?$4p'a';'lLarae'7'i.'
A.9... ,wnt , - 'p,f;2@33o.!%
. e a
. i-
@w ,& . );r'r f:WM? a r I .k < /,
E, 0 a, 3' e Q:<C t,r.n$26
- - -~ ^ 'M?e!!'?. ~, gUni;'.'y'C:,lw) p- q - . ; ~\ '%Q j ,- ix,jz.:. S!,r y!'
w d . , ', L. ,: ,%; H, # e.o..j p 1 .
r n.?; . j ..r.
y, .< <
v.',- EE ),
'r G.r'!
g n y, sete f. e . s, . r.? e e e.
==
l TAP 2 328
&^Algn;;,%e;g
' 32 A:,
y:..,b
' // *W. ~f {[r yrG 'g?c;p!'s* l Cultural Resources and Land Use *-4
. .-9g'efe'ip;,/
r t, v' *
, ,;rg.;.. < r,
,t, ? '
Patterns on Residual Lands 1 ,g%s335
- s. s. V v. a
- s r.- <r t-> +.4 S;ir ,
" y ,g..*2 v a M 7- *3'3,.
r #
% hY[r. "p.'"
v'
[bE C ~
9an: 1),. u :. j -
8 ve ' L 5/ Y , h, 232
.,,~...a* . . . . . ~ , , , .,,f.r ,1,., y, . .
enc...ec, r.aa <c,rir 'c.g,s, 3 .- g ,;;,,,f,, g..g*. , n . ; .; Q h,
.--. t.+ :e ,iton us .g y g,eC r. , y _JJO
= e a. a t e n,#g G,..e ano (c.p,
,'.r, a.., i. s c. . , r.c e roa c anos :3 yu w., :.;,p,% <-g34'cW ,; '
g s.. p6f4 '7/]
%n s.n.a sw I
--- Peau .w e s Exwee .
-- us,.c .n . m . h. yP4,',:*34g!A;16)
- o-
.,3+ : $. .N'~1 ,c3m c7co gase3 a s.. <
.0 7d *Lasst anta. eso access
- f. maced Arua
. .,#w
, j'r, ?, - -
, m.w, var->.
a .. a . . . - . . . , . ~ ,
Dr..a.ge
, z . .
,P 1,
~ -h 353 ., '
L J stup, aatat oso Distv sapect e
. ,~, 1- > >< . i
( .i ,s , ,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,
4 c .
(sist rg Bomds L.rg ' in.a 5 act, g ,, . g 18 ' a .'
- % . i i . .u. .
347 y 359 354^
355 r.,,it
[i s. ,,' 4'I '
I . i a, .-,.....,.m.,,....
cia.it le,y , . ., %
- . y-z a'l
.tst. se aren.eelegic.t 6tte s _-,.T O- g e, p .
y .5 g$}g?g
.....-........m..4... , . . . , . ,,
- (a) site w ers Preceded by 23 CY 74 gd. ,m r g
. n.w gm..
m
. (- [~\
(vJ- 'ss /
l T T- %)
'. ,I Table 1 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites located on Residdal Lands l Union Electric Company Callaway Nuclear Per Plant Site t
Site Sec ' Approu cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23Cf- (Acres)
LEVEL UPLAND PRAIRIE (n=41)
Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 242* 13 -
Exclusion zone 15 39.0 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 251 252* 15 8.0 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
.15 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 253* 12 19.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturtance Not eligible
[ 254 14 Crop stubble 255 11 12.1 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Crop stubble 256* 11 5.9 m ddie-Late Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow rone disturbance Not eligible Archaic Crop stubble 257 1 14.8 Prehistoric / H/ Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Limited Agri Eligible Historic Fabricating Crop stubble Processing Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 258* 2 1.C Crop stubble Historic Cemetery / Burial Cemetery Weeds, brush Avoid Not eligible 259 18 .1 ,
Legend: Sec - Section Mu h U - Unable to Evaluate + Limited Agriculture-see page 38 N - ;1onhabitation T H - Habitation Avoid-see page 39 D - Discard (dump) ys.e (outbuildings) * - 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 recomunendations in this management plan.
J
m i- m .
,<~q .
/
) w .(x ,)c Table 1 -(cont.)
Present NRHP-Site Sec Approx Cultural -Site type / Activity Ground Cover Land Use Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations +- Potential **
No 23CT- -(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 plow 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 271 11 1 Historic H Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 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 Historic H. N Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Cemetery Brush Avoid Not eligible 277 10 9 Historic Holland f g g,g l Cemetery 278 10 1 Historic H Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l
279 10 1 Historic H Nonagri Weeds, brush Subplow zone disturbance- Not eligible 281* 11 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 285 14 1 Historic H Agri Grass 52bplow zone disturbance Not eligible l
297 1 .3 Historic U Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
_)
.) -
9 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) 298 1 3.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zcne 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 /Knappino Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 303 10 14.8 Early Archaic Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food processing 1
308* IC 10.25 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible .
i 309 10 13.6 Late Archaic Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble. Limited Agri Eligible (4 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 / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible (feature) 31S* 13 .7 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 319 14 1 Historic H Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligi'.,le 321 15 10.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food processing
t"^ .
]
\ -(
ye Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP Land Use Limitations + Potential,,
No Size Affiliation 23CY. (Acres)
PRAIRIE / FOREST EDGE (n=34)
Historic D Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 262 13 1 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 263 7 1.4
/ 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 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 266* 18 .1
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
- 268 10 1.7 Prehistoric 4 Not eligible Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance 272* 15 .75
/ Knapping Monagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 280* 10 .1 Prehistoric Agri Crop stut,ble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 282 12 1.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Cemetery Forest, grass Not eligible 283 14 .5 Historic Law Cemetery / Burial Avoid
/ Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 284* 14 .3 Prehistoric 8 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 286 23 Crop stubble
/ Knapping Nonagri 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
~
b J
p- m
. 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).
Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 292* 7 1 293* 7 .11 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest .Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 12.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 294* 7
.15 Preisistoric / Chert procurement Nonagri ~ Nothing Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 295* 7 Knapping
.1 Historic U Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 299 1 Late Woodland / Cang / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited agri Eligible 304 10 3.2 Nississippian Hunting
~
cn Food processing Fabricating
.25 Historic U Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 305 10 Prehistoric / Knapping Nonagri Brush, grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 306* 10 1.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 307* 10 1.2 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 310* 10 .3
/ Knapping .Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 316* 13 .1 Prehistoric Historic U Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 317 13 .25
/ Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 318* 14 5.6 Prehistoric
/ Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 320* 14 1.5 Prehistoric
r ,
1 W.
k k. .( '
b Table 1 (cont.)
Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use - NRHP .-
Site Sec Approx Cultural Potential **
No Size Land Use Limitations +
23CY- (Acres) . Affiliation 324* 23 05 - Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible-23 05 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 325*
Historic Monagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 327 23 .2 H 328 23 1 Late Archaic / Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri -Eligible Early Woodland .(bifacemanufacture)
Cutting, butchering 329 23 .5 Historic H Agri Grass Maintain present use Not eligible 330* 23 .2 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Brush Maintain present use Not eligible
~
cn DISSECTED UPLAND DAK-HICKORY FOREST (n=17) 296 18 .25 Historic .H Nonagri Forest Subplow zone disturoance Not eligible 322 22 4.5 Late Woodland / . Camp / Knapping Monagri Weeds Limited Agri Eligible Mississippian Hunting i'
.15 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 323* 22
/ Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 326* 23 .5 Prehistoric Prehistoric / Knapping Agri. Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 331* 24 .3 332* 25 .1 Prehistoric -/ Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 333 25 Historic H Monagri Forest, grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 2
i
'J
. ya
\ -
.g
- q i
I Table 1 (cont.)
Site See Approm Cultural Site sype/ Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP '
No Size Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
l 23CY- (Acres) 334 25 1.1 Prehistoric Chert ./ Chert procurement Monagri Forest ' Avoid Eligible source Knapping 335 24/25 18.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Jubplow zone disturbance Not eligible -
336 25 5.75 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 337 25 - Historic / Rock pile Monagri 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 /Enapping Monagri Grass Subplow zone disturbance. Not eligible 341* 26 .I Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Supplow zone disturbance Not eligible 342 26 .1 Historic H Nonagri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 343* 26 .I Prehistoric / Knapping knagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible DISSECTED UPLAND /90TTO K AND FOREST EDGE (n=16) 20 35 7.4 Middle 7/ / Knapping Nonagri Weeds Avoid Eligible Late Woodland 74 35 .1 Middle 7/ Mound / Burial? Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible Late Woodland 214 31 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 344* 35 1 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible
l l
l Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site T M / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Size Affiliation Land Use Limi ta tions + Potential **
23Cf- (Acres) l l
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 343 35 2.5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Nonagri Forest, brush Avoid Eligible i
I Food processing Nonagri Forest Avoid Eligible 5 350 35 .1 Late Woodland Mound / Burial i 351 35 5 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Grass Limited Agri Eligible Food precessing 352 36 6.2 Late Woodland / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible Food pracessing Hematite processing Pottery making Groundstone manufacture 8.4 Middle-Late Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited Agri Eligible
- 353 36 Archaic Food processing Late Woodland 354 36 .25 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Nonagri Brush Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible 355* 36 1.6 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Cul tivated . Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible l
l l
l
r-
,- ,-~
' (v) s_/
I fv} *-
Table 1 (cont.)
Site Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Stre Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23CY. (Acres) 356 36 11 Middle-Late Mound / Knapping Agri Weeds Limited aarl Eligible Archaic Camp Food processing Late Woodland Burial Hunting Drilling 359 25/26/36 30 Early Archaic Camp / Knapping Cemetery Grass, forest Avoid Eligible Lite Archaic Cemetery Food processing Limited Agri Middle? and Hunting Late Woodland 5
'l
I i
O prehistoric archaeological sites, but it is especially common In the b study area where quality chert resources are plentiful.
Historic Raunurcam Twenty-nine historic components were recorded in the study area. Of these,19 are determined to be habitation sites based on foundation remains and artif act scatters consisting of ceramics, building materials, and other domestic artif acts. The remaining 10 sites consist of I nonhabitation site (outbuilding), 1 dump area, 3 cemeteries, and 4 sites which were unable to be evaluated due to an Insufficient amount of artif actural material and historical documentation. Sixteen of the 29 historic components are located within nonagricultural areas.
Safety regulations required early demolition and bulldozing at 15 sites. This activity has offacted the archaeological Integrity at sites 23 CY 269, -271, -278, -279, -285, -297, -300, -319, -327, -329, -347, (9 -348, -273, -276, -342.
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 documentation.
Archltacturni Raunurene 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 outbulldings 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.
(O) 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 I ls a telephone substation. Barns and sheds are the most common structures (14 each), while animal shelters number among the least common.. Overall, the configuration of existing structures and ruins is typical of rural Missourl and the rural Midwest.
Evaluation of Site Significance Prahlstoric Sites Conclusions regarding site significance are a major objective of all cultural 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 information, the reader is ref erred to the O i Phase i report (Ray et al.1984). While the NRHP criteria are useful for (d
many historic and historic architectural sites (e.g., a president's birthplace or a battiof teld), they of ten are too general to establish 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 alI-encompassing criteria by which archaeological sites can be centrally evaluated for state and local significance" (1981:25-26). Thus, signif f cance 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 criterla were employed by American Resources Group, Ltd., to evaluate potential NRHP ellglbility of each of the
,q prehlstoric archaeological sites recorded on the residual lands. For 21
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 attributes:
- 1. site appeared to of fer 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 poorly understood microenvironmental Zone.
- 5. site represented a cultural period which has received little 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 settlemt nt 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 yleid, Information important in prehistory or history" (Federal Raatster 1976:1595). These provide the field Investigator and the reviewer with specific guidelines with which O
V to evaluate archaeological resources, justi fy recommendations of 22
additional research or no f urther research, and to make statements of 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 Regisier of Historic Places is based on the following interrelated factors:
- 1. Site failed to meet any of the eight' criteria.
- 2. Site produced very few artif acts suggesting a highly transient occupation. Of the 41 prehistoric sites considered potentially nonsignificant, 27 produced 5 or 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 fIakes and lacking culturally diagnostic artif acts of for iIttie research potential or new data beyond site location inf ormation.
p 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 recommendations of nonsignificance.
Architectural sites were evaluated and considered significant or nonsignificant using the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.
Historic archaeological sites were considered nonsignificant based on the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, Integrity, temporal considerations, and the availability of published sources of historic documentation other than the archaeological record.
Evaluating all sites using these criterla 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
s
- ,; -V"o
v c m g.257 g 291
*.! 4 c.,
(
l y.g' .,. '3
. _sg _ _ __ ___ *- , g,.l a 267
- .:...; N (: ;'j
( )
.. w E,f, t,. ..
...e .
.:w. ,-c.
. m ., . s o
h,,sem 4,q - i,
,-..3_. .
'g
'. g :%
]l 314 ', ;
)*
~309' ' . .
' ,q
([j g -
,3 e, 4 v
k, .. ,
, 'e i9 , . ' . ~. ,. , E 256 ; , l E} .
e i 4 #.
s ! < l .=:3
- ",(T - ; ,
304' . '
8
- g.
,' 303 gl 4, / sf<3'" ;
......., o .
b . G bb V// \'. . . .
mph . .a
. 1 . ... ..-
'~'
%g ,,'====== 21 -
b1
. 321 y/ s' 1 i., -
% s
-@ *** g i
y.
v' p .);ST,.. ... a;f
,.'.K -
,/ .... .) $ ". $ -.._
) o
- j- i* 3 +'
/ .
is UcLusO4
' $) ,p ..
i 'ZoM ...
N
/ ..
'\*k,'3{,,I y 1LL
,5 j !
,/-
'} -
, fa ..
y ,,
i L,, , , ,
'. W !
d MAP 3 328 , gh. ,,
.. N Operation and Maintenance Zones .
M [
with Significant Cultural Resoure.s c d r, g
}, g *
- g' .. . 334 "'
i e'
" < p ..-. , @
M e i
' p) .;
+ '
- i. f s.
.. 'i *
\
ll
.. ,t 3 ( -, fI *%'~ .,, , ~*
w r. .e ene a,.. m. aans ! , .- 339 e w.ec,me n*e. (cwe ri c. .3,, y f.T ; / s sI I
. . . . c . , e. i e., e .
.. . t v. c, s ic ,i
... .j :.;-) . -
I
. .... . v. e. . ., e, w am , ,
s se,,
-. - e. .. .am. j .,
[
- - as n. t .~ L... no a =
.-~,.
'; s.o. c.
. fine.ree ar .g' T ~
. '.',*L's'e' .". * <y',j'" ..
tl ' .'.m"*e**.*
.. e
,,w. i a ne n a r.
f ' /
o c ..q c ,
p t. , t,,,n . ,
/
74 9) Operations and Maintenance Zones , .
/ ,'
@ Prehistoric Archaeological Site $ l' ", ., 4 '
- > nas==
346')'34$ .. '
3$6 *"* si s ' **
Q Historic Archaeological Site { .c w --
..- c iJ .,
] 't'j,h352,,'S
.% .", 35t '. i. 's,.i . . . . . . .- /+:*. 10 ;
Site Numbers
, ;^ - )
Preceded by 23 CV '
349e )e 350 /f 20;5 g ,,. a'
, 14-F' g MQ \
- 'p
.y,r q;n,. w .,
'] MvtA ACCESS Ofet
brief summary of each site is provided below. For more detailed n
discussions of these sites potentially eligible f or nomination to the (v) NRHP, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment report (Ray et al. 1984).
23 CY 20 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 low 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.
Similar pottery sherds suggest 23 CY 20 is at least contemporaneous, if not affiliated 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 f rom streem deposited sources, and supplemented by Jefferson City chert, another locally occurring chert. The preference (n)
V for Burlington chert may be due to its susceptibility and responsiveness to heat treatment. Over 50% of the Burlington artifacts at the site had been heat altered.
Based on reported materials from the site, Evans and lves (1973:10) suggested the site is a multicomponent occupation, spanning 10,000 years including a Middle Woodland component. However, the pottery recovered f rom 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 Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.). The si te's topographic setting Indicates a high potential for buried cultural horizons (Map 2).
23 CY 74 The site is apparently a burial mound and is probably representative of the Boone Phase in central Missouri. The setting high on a bluf f overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the n
j'
, 25 i
l
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 11 (Chapman 1980:121:
Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly af f11 lated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112) 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 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 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 secondary decortication flakes concentrated at the head of a ravine. Also located were three large bif aces, one large preform, one mano, and a probable platform preparation abrador; only the pref orm and the platf orm preparation abrader were colIected. It was noted that many of the secondary decortication flakes and one of the large bif aces were knapped f rom stream deposited chert. The high percentage of secondary decortication flakes, the relatively high number of bifaces (6 total) for a small field camp, the pref orm, and the platform preparation abrader all suggest the site was used primarily for 26
iJ ,
4 V Initial reduction and bif ace maguf acture. The' f act that the majority of artif acts with cortex surf aces was knapped from stream deposited nodules suggests that most of the chart probably was procured f rom 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 Ettey Stemmed projectile point / knife (Chapman 1975:246) including the,large form (14 cm in length), blade shape, and the preliminary shaping of the hafting element. Because of this Etley-like projectile point /kni f e, a Late Archaic af fil;ation has been assigned to the site. i The probable llatf orm preparation (or antler flaker abrader) is a sandstone stab, 12 x 18 cm, and exhibits two parallel, slightly sinuous grooves on one surface.
23 CY 267 The site h a small field camp and knapping station with no
[] evidence of substantial habitation. Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 267 Indfjetos an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured f, rom stream deposits; however,'. the two Jef forson City
, flakes indicate transportation of that chert' from at least 1.5 km distant. A fluted Clovls projectile point Indicates a Paleo-Indian occupation ca. 12,000 B.P. '7
, 23 CY 291 The site is a small field camp kith three discrete knapping stations. The relatively high percentage; (63.4%) of flakes greater than 2 cm2 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 Jefforson City (lake Indicates transportation of that chert from approximately 1.8 km distant. The tool types suggest f abricating and
,, processing activltles. Cultural affiliation is unknown.
j w ,
~ _ .
J. 27
S (3
23 CY 303 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The 3
/ projectile point base and serrated biface midsection suggest activities related to hunting and butchering, and the pitted / hemmer / grinding stone indicates plant processing activities. The Rice Lanceolate component 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).
4 g' 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 cm 2 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
?VN food preparation.
Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 304 Indicates a predominant y'
utilization of Burlington chert, mostly procured from the nearby creek bed. A small triangular arrow point recovered at the site is af filiated with the Late Woodland / Mississippi period which ranges f rom 1200-500 B.P. In the study area.
23 CY 309 s
v{ The site appears to represent a seasonal or reoccupied fleid camp Analysis of the chert sample from 23 CY 309 and knapping station.
Indicates a predominant use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposited sources. Activities other than filnt knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering.
The Ettey Stemmed projectile point / knife is af filiated with the s A Late Archaic period (5000-3000 B.P.) and is a diagnostic artif act of the
' Booth assemblage and Culvre River ceremonial complex in northeast g
.>), o, 2 Missouri (Chapman 1975:246).
n ,by g, ,+n 28 1
6 , _ - , , -- . , - - , . . . . , . _ _ - - _ _ , . - ...__,. _ ,,,-,
p 23 CY 314 The site is probably a small field camp and knapping station with s ' 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 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, chert procurement was predominantly f rom the closer Burlington sources.
However, one-third of the arti f acts 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 of secondary decortication flakes and flakes in general with dimensions greater . than 2 cm2 (61.3%) Indicates initial lithic reduction. A triangular arrow point suggests the site was also used as a hunting camp during the Late Woodland / Mississippian periods ca. 1200-500 B.P.
Analysis of the limited chert sample f rom 23 CY 322 indicates a pref erence for Burlington chert. Both stream deposited and residual chert sources were utilized. ,
23 CY 328 i The site is a small field camp and knapping station lacking evidence of permanent habitation. The artifactual evidence Indicates bifacial tool manufacturing, probably for cutting and butchering purposes. A corner-notched, haf ted tool is probably af filiated with the
- Late Archaic /Early Woodland transition period, which ranges from 4000-2500 B.P. In the study area.
13
,b 1
29
- - - ---w, ,----+y --g.- - --,-3m----+ .c p--- --w
- 23 CY 334 The site is a chert procurement and primary reduction knapping station with no evidence of habitation. The presence of 53 cores, the near absence of worked / utilized artif acts, the f act that 67.5% of the flakes recovered were decortication flakes, and that 85.9% were greater than 2 cm2 are all consistent with what would be expected at an initial reduction lithic workshop. Quarrying was unnecessary at the site since the residual chert readily outcrops on the southwest exposure of the ridge. Thermal pretreatm'ent was also unnecessary due to the inherent fine-grained nature of the chert. The artifactual evidence supports a nearly exclusive use of this residual Jefferson City chert source.
Cultural af filiation is unknown.
23 CY 345
, The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The haf ted
- drill Indicates activities such as stone, bone, and/or wood boring, and C\
\j the chert analysis indicates a heavy rollance on Burlington and, thus, stream deposited. chert resources. Suggested cultural af filiation for the site based on the haf ted 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 artifacts from 23 CY 346 Indicates a selection for and predominent utilization of Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, over readily available residual /
redeposited Jefferson City chert. The fact that 74% of the flakes collected were less than 2 cm 2suggests 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 inct ude hunting and butchering. The three Callaway chert fIakes, ali found in one shovel test, Indicate some use, although minimal, of this A scarce chart known to occur 6.5 km away.
30 u--,- T' -M---1 '*8 - - 7 *-rm-- ----**---------'e* ' - < - Wew---**a4rp+w e - ,y----.g...g.-mewwgne&-p g -.---,e-gcm,wgypar ww- n e e-e y- e yv-w e wyy97 p.- g-yyyugwyy-ny7-r -wrwyawy g
l l
, A Dalton point recovered at the site represents the transitional I ,\
V .
period between Paleo-Indian and Archaic times or Late Paleo/Early Archaic period, ca. 10,600-9000 B.P. (Chapman 1975:96; Goodyear 1982).
Dalton points have been found in situ in the earliest levels of nearby Arnoid Research Cave and Graham Cave (Chapman 1975:245).
23 CY 349 The site is probably a reoccupied cainp 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 sourcos, over readily available residual or stream deposited Jef ferson City chert.
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
[d 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 Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and burials do sometimes occur under stone cairns (Denny 1964:141). The Boone Phase is Iargely confined wIthin the Iower Missouri Valley Locality iI (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly af fiIlated 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 artifacts from 23 CY 351 Indicates a predominant use of and preference for Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from redeposited sources, over readily
/
d' 31
- -- . .-n-, -- ,- , - , . _ - . , - - - ,,- -- , , .,------w--,
m 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, whereas 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 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) 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 by the tool types and debitage include secondary, but predominantly tertiary, flint knapping
) 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 probably af f iliated with the Late Woodland period and may be associated with the Boone Phase of central and east-central Missouri; suggested dates range f rom 1500-1000 B.P.
Both Boone Plain and Moreau or Boone Cord Marked pottery types are identified as Boone Phase in the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:276-277; 288-289; Denny 1964:96-99, 72-75), and Darnell or Graham Cord Marked and Graham Plain pottery types probably are associated with Late Woodland peoples (Chapman 1980:280-281). All four pottery types are found primarily in the Lower Missouri Valley ll Locality (Chapman 1980:276, 280-281, 289). The site's location on an alluvial terrace g .s suggests a high potential for buried cultural deposits.
/ )
(d 32
23 CY 353 N_/ 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 (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.
Examination of the debitage suggests primary, secondary, and tertiary reduction on the site. Activities oiber than flint knapping suggested by tool types include 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 occupations. Although possibly inhablied during the Early Archaic period, the major components suggested by the surface collection tentatively have been af fl!!ated with the Middle to Late Archaic (7000-2500 B.P.) and Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) periods. The site's terrace setting provides the potential for buried cultural deposits.
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 mounds were located, recorded, and tested with a soII 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 p
)
%' J 33
i l
l hunting and butchering, drilling, plant food pr: cessing, 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 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 Archaic period.
The major component at 23 CY 356 is af filiated with the Late Woodland 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 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 f
sherd (Graham Plain) found on mound A is similar to Late Woodland pottery found at Graham Cave and Arnold Research Cave (Ch'apm an
- Iv80
- 121). In addition, the Rice Side Notched, Steuben Expanded Stemmed, and Scallorn Corner Notched projectile points- found on the site are all characteristic of Late Woodland Boone Phase (Chapman 1980:115).
This Late Woodland component is probably associated with the village or j
residential base camp (23 CY 352) located on the adjacent terrace directly below or west of the ridge and 23 CY 356.
f 23 CY 359 From the small (selective) amount of material collected during the preliminary reconnaissance, it is evident that the site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. Although the small selective sample Is biased toward tools, there was no bias in collecting artifact chert l
fg types. A chert analysis indicates that there may have been a preference 34 <
I O for making tools out of Burlington chert since all of the projectile ]
points and all but one biface were knapped from this fossiliferous l chert. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by the tool types l Include hunting and butchering and plant food processing.
The diagnostic artifacts Indicate the site is multicomponent with predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. The side-notched point tentatively identified as Graham Cave Notched suggests the site may have been occupied during the Early Archaic (10,000-7000 B.P.) period (Chapman 1975:249) and the Big Sandy-like point probably representing the Middle to Late Archaic period (7000-3000 B.P.). The expanding stemmed Steuben point is restricted to the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland periods (Chapman 1980:313), and the Scallorn Corner Notched arrow point is a late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.) point type (Chapman 1975:312).
A t
Stanificant Historic Archaeoloalcal Sites k 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 in the process of preparing 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 Missourl is working on such a plan; and, when it is available, it will provide a research framework which will facilitate the evaluation 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.
O j j s
Site 23 CY 261 is an undisturbed homestead in the upland prairie 35
zone.- The artif act assemblage from the site ranges from ca. 1840-1929.
p y ). The site is depicted on early maps in 1876, 1897, and 1919. This evidence Indicates some continuity from the mid nineteenth century to the aarly twentieth century. This was a period of rapid change in central Missouri,- and the apparent undisturbed nature of the deposits 4
may of f er 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 f orest zone in the southern part of the study area (Map 2).
The si te's unique location on a rocky hillside poses interesting historical research questions.
Historic Architectural Sites 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
- ) arti stry.' While they may be potential candidates for preservation, they are best categorized as standard examples of their respective building types. For more detailed inf ormation on the architectural resources, the reader. is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey report (Ray et al.1984).
Potential Adverse imoacts Protecting and preserving cultural resources f rom 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 l
l and Indirect, are recognized (Schif fer and House 1975). Direct impacts are usually major land altering activities carried out in conjunction
- lv]
36 l
l
- - . - .. . . = . - . -
(
. with road, reservoir, pipeline, stock pond, and landfill construction, to mention just a few. The ef f ect of such activit ies on f ragile, non-renewable cultural resources is obvious and of ten decisive. There are direct- Impacts that are much less destructive than these major construction activities. Cultivntion 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 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 degrees of adverse ef fects 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 N - 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 little or no direct adverse impacts to cultural resources, yet, potential Indirect adverse impacts coula be high due to increased public exposure to archaeological sites. For example, a hiking trail near the prehistoric mound (23 CY 74, Map 2) 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, soll erosion on 4
archaeological sites, and timber harvesting.
Examination of these potential Impacts serves to point out the need for a cultural resources management plan and the usefulness of a management plan as a short and long range planning tool, both for Union
! Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation.
37 ,
-r--,-,.-- .m.. . ..,.m.-,,-,,_ . , , . - - , ,.m.,-,-,,.,.,- ,yy,y.--,m_ ,- ,wic.. , ,,,. .,..~ ,,,- - - erm -. .m,.m_ %._c
i O j GeneralIy, the current Iand use management plan which emphasizes wildlife management and recreation is compatible with the needs of j cultural resources management. Potential adverse impacts from 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 l archaeological site preservation without compromising the requirement of l
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 limitations will be central to the specific management recommendations.
Mannaamant Rece- endations and Guidelines The key management elements with regard to the prehistoric and D historic archaeological sites which will be of primary concern to Union
[O Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation will be current land use, land use limitations, and the statement of potential National Register elIgibliIty.
The four primary types of land use on the residual lands are cemeteries, agricultural, nonagricultural, and operation and maintenance of the power plant. Cemeteries consist mostly of small f amily plots, long abandoned and overgrown with brush and weeds. Agricultural use includes row crop, pasture, and related 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 limitations: (1) subplow zone disturbance, (2) avoid, and (3) limited agriculture (Table 1). A land use limitation of "subplow zone"
. O C is recommended at all sites which are not considered potentially 38
eligible for nomination to the National Register but will be protected i
V by the recommendations in this management plan. Avoidance requires that a site's surf ace and subsurf ace integrity be maintained by prohibiting land al aring activities. All potentially eligible sites which are in forest vegetation and all historic cemeterles 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 f urther evaluate National Register eligibility (Welchman 1979). Only three potentially eligible sites (23 CY 20, 23 CY 352, and 23'CY 359; Table 2) are located in an area of notential environmental Impact related to the operation and maintenance of the plant or associated facilit!es. Nomination forms for each these three potentially eligible sites will be completed and submitted to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. The other 22 sites identified as potentially eligible for nomination to the National
/S Register of Historic Places will be protegted from adverse impact by N.
placing a conservative protection boundary zone around each site. The protection boundary will range from 50 m to 100 m depending'upon site specific circumstances. For example, at many sites, the boundary stakes are set along the fence line even though the artif act distribution is well out in the field.
Limited agriculture can continue at potentially significant sites presently being used for agricultural purposes. Limited agricultural activity with reference to potentially significant 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 ll testing, the removal of brush i )
39 l
1
4~% f% ry.
(v b'
)
4 Table 2 Management Reconnendations for Potentially Significant Sites Site Size Location Cultural Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resources Management No (Acres) Affiliation Limitations + Recomendations*
23CY-20 7.4 SEl, NWI, SWl, 535' Middle Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase It if threatened 4
Earth moving assoc with O&M prohibited i
74 .1 SWI, NWI, SEl, S35 Middle-Late I Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve, Phase !! if threatened Burial mound i 256 5.9 NEl,SEl,SEl,S11 Middle Archaic - Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened 257 14.8 SEl, NWI, SEl, S1 late Archaic Brush, crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened i 267 8.2 Mll, SWA, SWI, S2 Paleo-Indian Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase 11 if threatened J A o
291 6.0 Wi, NWI, SW1 Unknown Crop , Limited Agri Preserve Phase II if threatened NEl, NEl, SEl, S6 303 14.8 SEl, SEl, S10 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase !! if threatened 304 3.2 NWI, NWI, SEl, $10 Late Woodland Crop LimiteJ Agri Preserve, Phase II ff threatened
- Mississippian 309 13.6 Ei, NWI, NEl, S10 Late Archaic Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase !! if threatened l 314 .25 NEl, NEl, NEl, 511 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase II if threatened 321 10.5 NEl, SWI, NEl, $15 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserve, Phase !! if tnreatened i 322 4.5 SWI, NEl, NEl, 522 Late Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve, Phase !! if threatened
' Mississippian 328 1.0 NWI, SWI, SEl, S23 Late Archaic? Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase 11 if threatened 1 + Limited Agriculture-see page 38 j Avoid-se* page 39
- 0&M-operation and maintenance j
i I
^~ -
7 ] 7's, .
Table 2 (cont.)
Site Size Location Cultural Ground Cover Land Use. Cultural Resources Management No (Acres)'
Affiliation Limita tions+ Reconnenda tions
- 23CY-334 1.1 5), NWI, NEl, S25 Unknown Forest Avoid Preserve,~ Phase II if threatened 345 1.25 Si, SEi, NEi . Middle Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve, Phase !! if threatened NE), NEi, SEl, S35 346 10.0 Ni, NWI, SE1 Early Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened SEi, SWI, NEl, 535 Dalton 349 2.5 Wi..NWA, SEi, 535 Late Woodland Forest- Avoid Preserve, Phase II if threatened 350 .1 SWI, NWI, SEi, 535 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase II if threatened Burial mound?
~
A 351 5.0 WI, NEl, SE1 Unknown
- Grass Limited Agri Preserve. Phase II if threatened NEi, NEi, SEi, 535 352 6.2 NWI, NEl, SWI ' Middle and Late Crop Limited Agri Preserve Phase II if threatened NEi, NWi, SW1. S36 Woodland Earth moving assoc with O&M prohibited 353 8.4 Ei, NEl, NWI, 536 Middle and Late Crop. Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened Archaic 356 11.0 Ni, NEl, SW1 Middle Archaic Weeds Limited Agri Preserve, Phase II if threatened SEi, SEl, NWI, S36 Late Woodland 359 30.0 Wi, NWI, $36 Middle Arr%fc Grass Close upper road to Preserve, Phase !! if threatened Late Wood.*.4 prevent erosion; Earth moving assoc with O&M prohibited Avoid 261 1.0 NEl, NEl, NWI, S13 Historic Grass Li,mited Agri Phase !! evaluation if threatened 339 1.0 'SEl, SEl, NWI, 525 Historic Forest Avnid Phase !! evaluation if threatened
~
y and trees would be expensive and harmful to the site. Third, the sites
/ \
Q 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 erchaeological sites in place, provide recommendations f or nonsigni ficant resources, and provide speci f ic guidelines for potentially significant archaeological sites f or 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 all prehistoric archaeological sites and these sites potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP, metal reinforcing rod stakes have been placed at the corners of all sites along field edges. Boundarles which f all within agricultural fields (pastures) are marked with wooden lath to avoid Q damaging f arm machinery. All stake tops are sprayed with orange paint
'd and marked with yellow plastic flagging. The boundaries are placed approximately 50 m to 100 m beyond site limits to provide a proper buf f er zone.
in addition, all archaeological sites are Ider.ti f ied w i th an aluminum plate af fixed to a reinf orcing rod upon which is painted the Archaeological Survey of Missouri site number (Figure 1). Thase site numbers are keyed to confidential site location maps and field notes ,
1 describlng the marker and site iocations. A map wIth accompanying notes l l
w ill be on file at the Environmental Services Department of Union J Electric Company and the headquarters of the Reform Wildlife Management Area.
- 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, 10 LJ 42 a .
U s om I
\
^ (G 22 l o.e avv. saa v. ou x.
o-o
~
5
/
I a
i Figure 1. , Site identification Marker electrical and telephone line excavations, transmission line construction, pond and reservoir construction, building construction, A
Q electrical transmission substation construction, cultivation (deep plowing or chisel plowing), and silviculture.
- 2. Limited cultivation in the form of shallow discing is permissible in order to maintain grass cover on those sites where limited agriculture is recommended (Table 2).-
- 3. Coordination with the Environmer.tal Services Department of Un'lon Electric Company should occur well in advance of any land use activities outside those found in Table I which may af fect the potentially significant sites. The Environmental Services -Department wIll Insure identification of site boundaries, will establish buf fer
' zones, and contact other regulatory agencies when appropriate.
- 4. Phase ll testing for the purpose of f urther eval uating significance will not occur until a potentially significant site is threatened by adverse impacts (Table 2).
- 5. The architectural sites on the residual lands are not .
43
~ _ _ , _ - . . . - _ . . . _ - . ---. . . _ , . . - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . - __
(,)
v eligible fcr nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and are not subject to land use t imitations.
- 6. There is the remote possibliity that the prehistoric and historic archaeological sites considered noneligible for nomination to the National Register may contain useful inf ormation. 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 exset 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 gg 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 assessments of the direct impact zones adequately meet the letter and spirit of federal tsws and regulations dealing with cultural resources.
Further, responsible use of this management plan will Insure the continu<ad preservation of the potentially significant archaeological resources into the future.
O.
U ,
I 44
. _ . . . . . , _ , . . . , , _ _ _ _ . _ , _ , . , _ _ . _ . . . ,, y . ,.___ __._-.
l
(-
\ }
REFERENCES Chapman, Carl H.
1975 The archaeology of Missouri. 1. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
1980 The archaeology _of Missourt. 11. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Canptroller General of the United States 1981 Are agencies doing enough or too much for archaeological preservation? Guidance needed. Reoort to the Chairman.
Cnmmittee of Interior _and insular Affairs. House of Reoresentatives. U. S. Goverment Accounting Of fice Report CED-81-61. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
. Denny, Sidney G.
1964 A re-evaluation of the Boone Focus a late Woodland manifestation in central Missouri. Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri.
Evans, David R.
1975 Proposal for mitigation of impact on archaeological site 23 CY 20. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St.
(~')N
\ s- 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 flie, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
1973 initial archaeological survey of the orocosed Union Electric Comoany Nuclear Reactor near Reform. Callaway County. Missouri. Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia.
1978 A cultural resources survey of the proposed Union Electric Company 345KV transmission line right-of-way, Callaway and Montgomery counties, Missouri. Ms. on f i l e, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
1979a 23 CY 20 the creservation olan for an archaeolog* cal site.
Archaeological Survey of Missourl, Columbia.
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 ile,
(' '3) Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
45
~
r r
Federal Register
. jc~3 1976- Rules and regulations 41(6):1595.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The chronological position of the Dalton horizon in the southeastern United States. American Antlaulty 47(2):382-395.
King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg 1977 Anthronologv on historic oreservation. caring for culture's clutter. Academic Press, New York.
McNerney, Michael J.
1978 A cultural resource overview of the Shawnee National Forest. Cultural Resources Management Studles #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
,-s, cooperation with Union Electric Company, St. Louis, 1
Missourl.
s Ray, Jack H., Michael J. McNerney, Edward Morin, R. Gall White, and Kurt R. Moore 1984 A phasc l cultural resources survey and assessment on residual lands at Union Electric Company's nuclear power plant, Callaway County, Missouri. Cultural Resources Management Report #52. American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
Schiffer, Michael B., and John H. House (assemblers) 1975 The Cache River archaeological project: an experiment in contract archaeology. Research Series #8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Jonesboro.
Tucker, Patrick M., and Edward M. Morin ,
1981a A cultural resources survey and assessment of the Sanitary Landfill Area, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site, Callaway County, Missouri. fultural Resources Management Reoort #50, American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
O V
46
1981b A cultural resources survey and assessment of the Emergency Operational Facility, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site, CalIaway County, Missouri. Cuitural Resources Management Renort $ 51, American Resources, Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinols.
Welchman, Michael S.
1979 GuldalInes for renorting ohnse ll testing of archaeoloalcal site significance and evaluation of National Register ellalbility. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Natural Resources, Jef f erson City, Missouri.
O t
l lO l
47
( :ff _,:
, g -
7 8
s 'g ,i , ,J 32 : . . , . .
MOKANE EAST MO. ""# - I' % fl.',:/
= = = :" MA ,2 rc> ,
m ~ "i eaa
,m T KM y 5i 1
Q'Nr\ ' 4u 9<~ 4 a 3.,Es p - -@we i o' - l '&"t 2.
j j i
)g fJ ~
MAP SUP.PLEMENT* 'p / .. g ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATIONS i V AT UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (g
CALLAWAY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT .
y
- 1) ~j im_ ,_ r- .- d - ,_ 0
___j m mcat
- '~
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET SCALE 1:24 000 - -
V -
\
t[! t <
' 355 %
,)
s - .' ;% i "g,* J?%&,?).\ .
- This map is to accompany A Cultural Resources Management Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric Company Nuclear Power Plant, Callaway County, Missouri, October 1983
. . ~ ~. ,s _,
k _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . .
er - a T
'N y'
.Ih
.y ff .'8 %-'
rm, M i ';;',) C l' f, '
Ed s..
f .x 2cv j 7/, .
f5 "$ / 'I
.t.
c 29o e
'I. , ;. $ . f .,_. ..g,l . . . i. . . ).' . . s -
N e
,o m .s 2 aI 23o i
&n
( \ . ,,, - 3'+
4 '
E'3g-sg,,.
Lg o k3- -5
-. r 1ss m e2 ( L 3' A U # .: M S iE 7"N -
c; _ ;:k_ ter.r g
Q 3Q c oz.-.- O ~.
g ,
.r.
a., ..
, . ,p zw ,
' say. :. . 1 m
-u us .
l s >
t y +ygf O 0 .5 . MM m s, !
L ,)fh,.Q,
< t; . t,q nc
- 1. . . ; . . . . . . . .M; e i '
I 5
sS x~
" g o. 8 .
., y it
( . 7;ce -12 y mll ,,, y [C(s ' 's, . co
. g.505
- 29L . 5 f O .
/
so t,
_ ,2c,9 '
./ h
.e .# 3 Y
O, \
O a
'. l
/. *
'a, -- *
[t - e'
, i' p
". 265 W
N
\
- 228 .
J03 255 l'_
x ,., I d
- g
. [.
I' '
eor V O $,
. 21, ,m _ , _- - .
m., , .
gg' ss t h .
Q '
{ -I j ,' , OI5 f 25Y -
f* w. *-
'A N 1.
.", (
Ib [.'
g ',m j' 4 3 28 -
. 17t e,
./
'.,.,.. /. . y,.h 2O e u f ~
,29, , , g,f _,4
.W f ',
~
gs- .
3 e,.j t .
li 4
i ; .
< (
}\ . ,.
REFORM, MO. /p.. -
e ;
) -
g 3N . ks s 5 F. 4 f ut10t* 85*QuaDeM*CLE /* .I k , . ^ \
N J 84 }-W9145 / 7.5 9' l ~4 3,[ . Iq 9'
'- llZ 3 "- -
l \
(4*r'rf6ftijd.c-r c .4 iu<x ..r< i O. * - a f- -- -.. - - - --
m_ .
_ _ . _ . _ . E