ML20095D086
| ML20095D086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1992 |
| From: | Mcnerney M AMERICAN RESOURCES GROUP, LTD. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095D069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204240282 | |
| Download: ML20095D086 (57) | |
Text
_.
'I /
A Cultural Resources Managment Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric Company calloway Plant Callavay County, Missouri Prepared for Union Electric Company By.
l American Resources Group, Ltd.
Carbondale, Illinois
(
Principal Investigator and Author Michael J. Mc!!erney l
l:
I l
Cultural Resources Management March 1992 Report No. 52 9204240282 920416 DC- ADOCK 05000483 PDR
._o.
, s ABSTRACT A cultural resources management plan based on a Puase I cultural resources survey and assessment (Ray et al. 1983) on 5,848 acres of residual lands and Phase II testing at sites 23CY20, 23CY352, and 23CY359 (Traver 1985) at the Union Electric Company's Callaway Plant, located in Callaway County, Missouri, is presented.
One hundred twenty nine cultural resources sites were identific and evaluated caring the Phase I survey and assessment: 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21 architectural sites. Twenty three prehistoric archaeological sites are recommended as potentially eligible for 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 Histaric 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 subplov zone disturbance by this management plan.
l-l P
f i
i
I~ ~/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The entire staf f at A; erican Resources Group, Ltd., would like to thank the personnel of Union Electric Company Environmental Services Department, Nuclear Engineering Departmeut, and Real Estate Depal tment for their cooperation and assistance throughout the project. Special thanks to Mr. David J. Wambold for his pati ace, perseverance, and good-natured cooperation. Additionally, we would like to thank our professional consultants during this project: Dr. Dale R. Henning, consulting archaeologist, and Dr. George Fraunfelter, consulting geologist /geomorphologist.
11
. _ . _ . _ _ __ __ _ ~ .- . _ .. - . _ _ .-._ _. __ _ . .
. _ _ _ _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . - _
f /
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract............................................................ i A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduction........................................................ 1 Current and Future Land Use......................................... 3 Cultural Resources Management....................................... 5 Summary of Cultural Resources...................................... 10 Prehi s tori c Re sou rce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Historic Resources............................................... 21 Architectural Resources.......................................... 22 Evaluation of Site Significance.................................... 22 P re hi s to r i c S i t e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Significant Historic Archaeological Sites........................ 39 Historical Architectural Sites................................... 40 Potential Adverse Impacts.......................................... 40 Management Recommendations and Guidelines......... ........... .... 42 References......................................................... 51 List of' Figures
-1. Site Identification Marker..................................... 49 Li't of Maps
- 1. Operation and Maintenance Zones................................. 4
- 2. Cultural Resources and Land Use Patterns on Residual Lands..... 11
- 3. ;0peration and Maintenance Zones with Significant Cultural Resources............................................. 27-List of Tables
- 1. Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites Located on R e s i d u a l La n d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- 2. Managemant Recommendations for Potentially Significant Sites... 44 111
,~- , . , - - . .
I
, s A CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESIDUAL LANDS AT THE UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI I
l Introduction ~
This management plan, the Phase I cultural resources survey (Ray et al. 1983) and Phase II testing at three sites (Traver 1985) upon which it is based represents Union Electric Company's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (P.L.89-665 and 96-515), Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 as amended, and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment). Completion of the Phase I nrvey and accompanying management plan also provides documentation evidencing United States (Juclear Regulatory Commission compliance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservction regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties), and other app 1'icable federal and state regulations.
A Phase-I cultural resources survey and assessment of approximately 5,848 acres - (2,366 ha) was conducted on residual lands which surround the Union Electric Company Callaway Plant located in central :iissouri 10 mi east of Fulton, Missouri (Ray et al. 1983). The primary objective of the Phase I survey and assessment was to locate, evaluate, and identify potentially significant cultural resourcec; and the primary purpose of the management plan is to provide guidance for the preservation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Missouri Department cf 1
_ . _ _ _ - -- . . _ . - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ . .~
l
. s l
Conservation manages the residual lands under a let.se agreement with the property owner, Union Electric Company. A management plan currently in effect (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976) recommends that the highest management priority is to maintain a diverse, high-quality natural environment which vill provide recreational activities such as fishing, controlled hunting, nature study, and other compatible activities the Company may wish to incorporate. The cultural resources management plan vill supplement the existing land use management plan and vill be used by the Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation as a planning tool. Implementation and coordination of this plan is= the responsibility of Union Electric Company's Radiological Engineering and Environmental Services departments.
Prior to the construction of the plent and related facilities, Union Electric Company met federal legislative and regulatory requirements by funding cultural resources surveys in direct impact zones. During the period 1975 through 1979, Evans (1975, 1979) and Evans and Ives (n.d., 1973, 1978, 1979a, 1979b) wrote seven assessment reports. Also, direct impact zones were surveyed in conjunction with this project (McNerney-1982; Tucker and Morin 1981a, 1981b). This management plan includes the results or 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 I
definitions of cultural resources management, summary of potentially
(
2 I
l J 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 Regi s t e.- nomination process and guidance for implementation of the management plan.
Current and l'uture Land Use There are two general types of land use at the Callaway Plant site, k
operation and maintenance areas and vildlife management areas (recidal if lands). Activities associated with each of the two areas are different 3..-
and thus require different cultural resources management approaches. sj i
Operation and maintenance zones include electrical transmission lines, heavy haul road, settling ponds, railroad spur, quarry, waterlines (underground), emergency operations facility, meteorological 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, ear 1movin;. Cultural resources surveys and assessments have been completed and reviewed by the MSHPO at all of these operation and maintenance locations (Evans --
1975, 1979; Evans and Ives n.d., 1973, 1978, 1979a, 1979b; McNerney 1982; Tucker and Morin 1981a,1981b). These assessments were carried out ahead of construction and, with the exception of site 23CY20, did not r
impact significant cultural resources. Excavations were carried out to laitigate the impacts of railroad construction at site 23CY20 (Evans 1975; Evans and Ives 1979a). Therefore, with regard to future cultural resources management decisions within operation and maintenance zones, consideration must be given to the fact that (1) all areas have received 3
o
. , . - . . . . - __- . - , _ ~ . . ~ _ _ . . .- . . _ . -_ ~ _-
., gyo. ,- - .w ac-- -- >- -{ o. _ _ ,
~.
, ,. ,_ _ f * *% ~
i' i
- ~;: . '
O . '.
, '% . n.; . .
l Mg
-. ~ . ~ . ~
-;V. -
F. ~ . '
/. +y-.
)
, d2 KW Conttruction Power Lines * # i e *s [
' I
! Cons tNetion Power Suest.itida .
i I '.'
9 . J .' . s I. fr b - f Q
c..' ; i ,
,-Mine/ Quarry l
- C k , ,,,, ' w. *. ' . . ,,(Q 345 KV Transmission Linet
- - "Q ]; J ;
- - e e D j$ett)!nqPCA , .
- f;e-e -
p% 4He8vy Haal Road l l ,
. isi 3 I U.4 ' '~ ; 12 KV ConntWetton P0wer Lintj w, g' %
J '
.,s*****
- }l '- -
- g (-
c y . , ,
g ;..:.
- t
- e. . =e ,
.w+.
'{.:. h 4
.uf
' , e'iPlant Site
,,, NV f
\ '
t
, If e
/ ,
0""
Q'nergency Coer ns Factitty' '
y ..
005
V /
(.* 3a$ ant tJry Landf1} } ) , e
- q . '. &
.. s . . . . . .
i
- - -. 4, /
- ,o e
% C LVSC4
..% h & -
- ssX * ,'
1345 KV Transmiss nL 4 ,.
3 ..
1 %, . 3 ,. ,
. 1. . .
,IFuture Sludge 01sposal Systeml j l l f
- ' }C*JIOqyPlotj . s f
{ }3.8 KV Feeder Linel g ,
.. o .. , . y !345 KV Transatssten Linej g
f l s
/-
..\ .#
,3, 3 h,
, lhesyy Haul R04d h ,^ , ' \$ E4 T .?
!\
p 4 l
MP1 ,- - ,
s'
., . _ 1 Operation and Maintenance Zones t? . D ,lRailroad scurl (.
. , > / ..? -
i M , ,
'",. ';! ? 4 p 7
-e ,W I' s 4
Iii;
.
- f,med R.* teet me asten , ,.t E s
} f' ,
Semasee k ee t c , w r .eeds (Caentyl few g Greses Rose (Coumyl e
~*a M ;.
,,,,.'u--
- a
{
- _ ,,r
.e ea e e neee fe Se Csews er a .n.e r y owe accer as /
4 woes lyw he==ess usaae 4 0 wmate l ) , , j
-*- es av tisesre haes No 83
= = - -
.'? 3es*.m Canoe fU
. v e, t = inwte, (sense She, Phn '
!- ** a swww er esaw Imos * '
,g. .
. y or e ,
o t , seus seauner h .$ do* . , } \f i 1 /
p t=svg *=es trar nae .5 m g
' /g Ocaration and Maintenance Zones ., _ , . .y' .-
W- g
,f i ti.
, rQ- m- Y 1p, .
I" a
%;,, A Ag' . . . . . . .
/ :r _. -
f @15 charge Pipeltnel g i R N. NintuePipeitner * ,/
y.g emu ;,. >
w accgss um, 4
, e 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 (23CY20, 23CY352, and 23CY359) vill be protected by this management plan.
The residual lands at the callaway Nuclear Pover Plant site are being managed to enhance vildlife habitat and provide fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational opportunities for any individual, group, or organization wishing to make use of these privileges. Land use patterns, either planned or existing, which support and facilitate this management plan include forest habitat (5,251 acres), fishing ponds (10 ponds over one-half acre), crop lands (2,480 acres crop and pasture), access roads, hiking and equestrian trails, parking lots, and picnicing areas. The acreages may change slightly from year to year depending on agricultural, recreational, and wildlife management practices. 8 visitor's interpretive center also has been proposed (Missouri Department of Conservation 1976). Potentially significant cultural resources within vildlife management and agricultural zones vill be protected by this management plan.
Cultural Resources Management Cultural resources constitute a fragile, limited nonrenewable portion or the total environment. Because they are the physical legacy of various stages of past human lifeways, they are illustrative of man's cultural development. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic architactural resources.
These resources are represented by sites, buildings, districts, and objects (Executive Order Counseling Notes Revised 8/1/74).
5 l
i
- - . . - --~ . . - - . -. - . . . - . . - - .. . - . - . . . _ . . ..-
a
, e 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 IIistoric 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 entj ee volume. While many nonspecialists are required to evaluate reports and to make decisions about cultural resources, these persons often do not have the time nor the inclination to review the growing body of literature on the subject. For the present purposes, a brief review of the idea in the form of a working definition vill be useful.
' Cultural resources management seeks to have control (in action and use) and to have responsibility for sites, structures, objects, and districts which are historically, arcidtecturally, archaeologically, or culturally significant.
Implementation of such control or responsibility may include inventory, assessment, recovery, research, protection, 6
, s.
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 landovning agencies and corporations find themselves confronted today. The primary practitioners of the discipline are anthropologists and archaeologists (requiring a variety of supporting specialists in the physical and natural sciences),
historians, and architectural historians. Other disciplines rapidly becoming involved 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, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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 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 l
l 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 is the determination of significance. The evaluation of significance l
l includes the collection and analysis of artif acts from archaeological 7
l
. . - . . . . - - . . _ - _ . . - ~- - . - - - - ~ . _ _ - . . ~ . - -
t A sites, shovel tests or soil probings to determine the vertical and horizontal limits of the site, and the evaluation of architectural sites for historic significance.
Next, a conclusion regarding the significance of the site is offered by the investigator. This conclusion is based on the evaluation of the results of the survey and the National Register of Historic Places criteria for significance. The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. The National Rqgister 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, verkmanship, feeling, and association, and:
(1) That are associated with events thac have made a significant contributior 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).
In 1987 a Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri (Weston and Weichman, editors, 1987) was published. The Study Units, Cultural Units, and Research Questions preser.ted in this document 8
.. - --. - . _ . . - - . - _ . ,~ . -- - . . . . - - - - -.
should also be considered in preparing research designs and evaluating the significance of the cultural resources at the Callaway plant should any resources be impacted which would require Phase II testing in the future.
The investigator's conclusion regarding the eligibility of a particular property for nomination to the National Register is reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Of ficer in consultation with the agencies involved. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is a state official appointed by the governor whose job it is to insure that the cultural resources of the state are not destroyed arbitrarily and to make recommendations to protact 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 S:lPO 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 office within the National Park Service, the core unit of which is the National Register of Historic Places (King et al. 1977:88). If the properties do not meet any of. the criteria, no further action is required.- If the 1
property is determined eligible, then appropriate preservation measures l are developed by the responsible agencies.
l Following the indentification and ascessment phase of the cultural resources management process, land use limitations are offered which are
-designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicated carlier, cultural resources are fragile, limited, nonrenewable portions of the 9
natural and cultural environment; any direct land altering activities (ie. roads, reservoirs) or indirect impacts (ie, increased public use of an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the site.
These potential impacts or adverse effects are evaluated, and appropriate mitigative alternatives are offered. Mitigation may include avoidance, data recovery through excavation, or other means of preservation.
The foregoing provides a brief outline of the cultural resources management process including: a definition of cultural resources, a summary definition of cultural resources management, a discussion of significance, and key concepts of cultural resources management. These concepts vill serve as a f ramework within which to develop a cultural resources management plan for the residual lands.
Summary of Cultural Resources One hundred twenty nine sites (Map 2, Table 1) were identified and evaluated during the Phase I survey and assessment; 79 prehistoric archaeological sites, 29 historic archaeological sites, and 21 architectural sites. For more specific information regarding individual sites and related research information, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources report (Ray et al. 1983).
Prehistoric Resources Of the 79- prehistoric sites, cultural. 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 affiliation was established for 17 (21.5%) sites.
10
___.q * ~ T.l ".%;*.y:'VT.'* * 'rm.'-f. ..
w., . . . . . . . d. o a.c, r ,: . ..w m v ..
u
- m. n,.n., . . m
.. ... ..e4_.
. . . 3 -,f.
- d ,.
- o M. .
- v1._ W e~.n Gr. .
+- t '%s e.n .
,e w m.s ,u w n?s n. . is#l.:e
.k4 2..,wv . m.
ir % ..fG t.,y n .
2.' g,. <' . N wM . . a. 1 % L . E,.nm g..:
m -w o h w m ,. _ .
- vP M -?e ,1.1.*..'s d ,'4,,J
'.*. * *. ".g/. * - *(.Q7y , 3-,'
t e 314 ds* . . ,5 3q*, 3
... 4 m .',p:73 ..4 4 c ,vr. .c-N.
- .w eO ..
y a ,
3 m v s.
Ls ~u w , t~;.o.w in h. ,.m
'.e*3m,e x,, ..<o . . r g t m o .9 _. r e - t.. A ., g e :.:;,
- .. w.c .a, %w e.., 294:q#,g., .
a
- ms . . "1
. ! **2 '4 O ' . -%t%y.- .,
a m.,$ j. s m.
. qg'. . e, ""'hT"1 L # -
.~
l A. ! .,, u2.im :.: ;i"*
. M.
- i": 't . $,-
u A . 'P
- 293
... p , .p.,agr , ,w;
- a.1,:.-. . -, j...,s
'c.e.. a r. s2 ..
,.;3, 3m
!J 3cs: g"e
- m. i a{ e
- m. m ;.#.,#{ r.,yn .
,<..s.N c
.@e a.r 303 ,y, h sql h -
Au
,w:.w o 4 y.:3t.,
- e. .e . : 7,
.. , S .
/ z. 3. .$.~..s.m:::2. ....
w.- .
ss.ms s, 0: .s
.O.
v i ~m.,. . c. m.s .. t c .. .
.e. ..
i 7 7? h'*< -
4 ,4........
, Ahg..M .#1sss .e#.A . ...--.1.'.'.
) - - - - ,
. ~
- V ;375 8-91=.3. :
m . a.'d, .I (%'8)j
__ isj@e c.m ems s @9[.,2 + i :"
( ,m
'3 N 25, . *\ Oh J
$p,2 ei,' d j.iii.sM.ss:.s.dj87,'.P'P . q .. _,,/
A #.fi'p..n ..m. .
,e . SM. :!!!!!: .' 26 g ..*25(. t. ' p3 'o= . T.i.
- 9. . w -. . c y . \.. . - . '. . ... 9. ~ g. >
Tit,' /
,, ' A-u i . / 5 ,M,; .e /
s
/,yh # o A b 'd. p i I - .'.cf.cg%oG'I,e,;j.E w ..
33 g *Nx\
f cc,. M. 7u
,/ Ys ,'p.;t,9,&.6hjhi w 2,6 h',h,.h.n'6,N m9T'-) .s+Q y,,k 3,1Pt ,f.
+ .. ; / .
.-5 . ~'i . J: '
.k!!::.?iN(" /'*f,e' f ,C"s?,Mb.ue M'
- f. .?' %% ' ,.,\% f,/? "::'$e 1
Q:
. . . . . l.e.-;d.
.. 'A' t "* rd'r . Q. ;,.1,..
9
,*r.s286.f72% A' ..e *** e
! I' W p22h.Ws*
, :7
~in./,.,.t,)f;P'.
e
,.7.
' 3$. r *2* >.<<,
3
- TsLp. ,:'f.,%:.,4lG,rT%M;<
-<v.,.,e..>
'% .; >>g..+
L-r# r.e :!'y, :
. .r t *? -
,n nen e .* a *r, M e t ' 7 ea r* . t.
n 7,}
a .
o'.er . c' c. ,Q r 3?0 O r .Tn ,' f ' -
f<:.ir$.
- w. ft 3vnm:'$krtT rQ,.Yye. o/ , s *'.dr&y:k h! X,f.N'A '. m. :'4'G'! .* 2,';r.c:a ,T,1j WI ..,., 331 f': ,<; : .
S W pl g' p 'P s r
- Ce n.l g"M ','/.&h6 *#1,f?M9N/'s -
- - 4y* j . Gi.M.,
t
- f.r,;.3
, . , 9
. pf.5pJ,oCf .
p, +r.<,::@f. # 'r
~ ..,.
- 3 3
'..'r $ * ' ' '
.C.< D ..r h . [C ',h' a5 ,4 en
' F ' gg%; r, i
~.r e *N
.. mp 2 328 '"O *. .t osa,".'w'~, anf.;o)uw'y. q e/ a < 't'sV.c,',
432$ lf'$f,l.*g/*' h *: T*t Q: ,0 e :-
,5- l Cultural Resources and Land Use k . -.4 < t.,
.,2 k,gn, Pattertst on RfTidual Lands t'.,'h .'Gle 7- .-
s 5 j
'?.ht335k". D'.
h .Yi ., :.' .
,,M.N *.33 N
t!C[% N D.f;,.M.6* J.,I',5h ,'d *-
- A'O. 3/A , ~ k.dt; $ %n
' AF J 7.s 4 332 >
.. a- , t., bn' - w . N=e .3 r .; m. - -
w .J
. , rm re a<. = a4ms no weet,, e suas (ca.mo v,w'%
'.g , .h"g;,1%'w.
.g.
ga.r ..,y,A JL gM.,38,7.;.,
r.%:. kjs,, M, ,.'.?,2&.,m" ..,,. 3.
L
= = = . t . s.a t., a e .(rs, y .
. - .
- t..non to .a a a gw,, .
, ace e , rm.e.c
- v. % ,p ,,m, Q ,. ft-f. D __aa0 ne,,, m.m 1. s. c a tm g',g;w,,,,.,n 436, c
e s., .
,.} ,
/
- - e. im .
- t c .a.< r+
-- m av ti . t.n zoo e,. b M',$ g.Ig),
g g .y; j
,, ' atsTRicTto 20NCs a , ,. c.
1 ewee a,ess y,". f',
'O M sNant nat te acctas Fel; a i aeon, ts i, Uw, Pm
, . ,y"n,.~/[ ,--
353 e
- i. . , g*ggge accm oosw-ce o.a. I.=> ,
o,.v= e - .4 d S Q stime antas, wo oisnasaar.
y ct g * = sm.a* * .m 1 f/J.1 'N l .
r i m , % ,. ,,n,,, c,,,,
g') 8.s.isPwe1.as,tw a ac,. s, ')a
/
=== no piens nueu 34 ? l 354 N-U'""1 s n F F , -=^o ') 359 /
' f 355 r n s,m., w. W.; c D' d S *.uner.c 4 sa.wwes i su.
- aw .
- ~ /~ ..,
. 6 356 O .]T.;k'v, m .g'.
neitene meca.wo,ini sne s 1
. .,n.m . .n.<w.i sn. I ,, , ,,
Site Mumbers \ff,4,' 74[3h];I --
@d n Preceded by 23 CY , ._-s, t s
.ggjng.% #"
"'?' ,,
11
?
Table 1 i
Prehtstoric and llistoric Archaeological $ltes .ocated on Residual lands Union Electric Company, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site
$lte Sec Approx Cultural Site Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP No Stre Affiliation Land Use Limitations + Potential **
23CY- (Acres!
LEVEL UPLAND PRAIRIE (n=41) 242* ' 13 - Prehtstoric / Knapping Agrf Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Exclusion zone i
251 15 39.C Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crep stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eltglble 252* 15 8.0 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not ellglble 253* 12 .~15 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Weeds Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible ,
i E$ 254 14 19.5 Prehlstoric Canc / Knapping Agri Cul tiva ted Subplow zone dliturbance Not eligible Crop stubble
{
255' 11 17.1 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Crep stubble ,
256* 11 S.9 Middle-Late Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not ellglble Archafc Crop stubble 257 1 14.8 Prehistoric / H/ Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Limited Agri Elf gtble i Historfc Fabricating Crop stubble i Processing (
l 253* 2 1.0 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Cultivated Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible Crop stubble 259 18 .1 , Historic Cemetery / Burial Cemetery Weeds, brush Avold Not eligible Legend: Sec - Section Number tr - Unable to Evaluate
- Limited Agriculture-sen page 38 ,
N. - Nonhabitation Type (outbulldings) it - Itabitation Avoid-see page 39 !
D - Discard (dump) * - Site with fewer than 10 Artifacts
- Noneltglble designations + e based on the results of the Phase I survey. There is the remote possibility that these sites may be eligible i
, and are protected by the recomendations in this management plan. !
[
l t l J i
i
. n
'i i + f i
i L
r Table 1 (cont.) ;
Site Sec -Approx' Cultural Site Type /fe 7vity Present Ground Cover Land Use NRHP !
No Stre Af filiation Land Use Limitations, Potential ** l 23CY- (Acres) !
260* 13 - Prehistoric /Knappfng Agri Grass Subplow tone disturbance . Not eligible
- 261 ,13 1 Itistoric H Monagri Forest, brush Avoid tilgible ;
267 2 8.2 Paleo Camp / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Limited agr1 fall plow Eligible for sterface collection 265 11 .5 Ifistoric 11 Nonagri Forest, brirsh Subplow zone d;stsrbance Not eligible r 270 11 17.25 Prehistoric. Camp / Knapping Agri Cultivated Suttplow tone disturbance Not eligible Crop stubble r
271 11 1 Historic 11 Nonagri Forest, brush Subplow rene disturbance Not eitglble 6 273 18 1 Historfc H Monagri Forest Subplow Jone disturbance Not eligible [
274* 18 2.4 Prehlstoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubble Subplow zone disturbance Not eitgtble 275* 2 2.5 Prehistoric / Knapping Agr! Crop stubble Subplow mone disturbance Not ettgible 276 3 2.5 Historic H,; N Nonagri Forest Subplow zotte disturbance Not ellglble 277 10 .9 Historic Holland, Cemetery' Brush Avold Not eligible [
Cemetery' Burial j 278 10 1- Historic H Agrf Grass Subplow rone d'sturbance Not e,'19tble j 279 10 1 filstoric 'N . Nonagri Weeds, brush Subplow Jone disturbence Not eligible ,
t 281* 11 .1 . Prehistcric /Enapping Agri r~op stubble Subplow rone disturbance Not eligible 285 14 1 Historic !! Agcl Grass Subplow zone disturbance Not eligible i
297 1 .3 lif storic U Nonagri Forest Subplow , zone disturbance % t eligible ;
{
I i
i t
E M ass m I
Tabit 1 (ce t. ) .
Site Type /Activtty Fresent Ground (c.er tam! Use me Site 5et Arprou Cultural Pot en t i a l'*
Size Affiliation Land Use !!altations' Ho 23C?- (Acres)
Crop stubbie Sep1w zone disterbance het eitstble 298 1 3.4 Prehistoric /rnaying Art H Agri Crop stubble 54p1m zwe disturb nce met ettythic 300 2 1 Historic
/razeping Agvl Crop stabirle S e pf w zone disturbance not eligitte 301* 2 .6 Prehlsteric Agel Cultivoted Suhte+ roce disturbance mot eligible l 302 3 .5 Prehtstorte Camp /rmappleg Ca m /* capping Agrt trop st*ble L1 cited Jigrt~ Citgthte I 303 10 14.8 Carly Arc.halc Food gncess f ng
/r.nappleg Agrt crop stutbie Subpfw rewa dist srbaace teo t elig41e 308* 10 10.25 Frehtstoric i Agri Crop stisbble Lim!ted Agrf Eltgtble Z 309 10 13.6 Late Archatc Caso /tnapping Punting, butchering Camp /FAspping Agri Cren stubb!c 54 plow rene distorta x e hot eligible 311 11 23.9 Prehtstoric fionegri To-es t Subplow zone disturbence % t elfglble 312 11 1 Historic H Cag /Enappfng Agrf Crop stelble Subplow roce disturtance Mot elfgtbie 313 11 62 Prehlstorf c Preh;storic Cav / Knapping Agri Crep stibble Limited Agri Ellgit:1e 314 11 .25 (feature)
/ Knapping Ag-t Crep stuSble Sut: plow roce disturbance not ettgtbic 315* 13 .7 Prehlstoric H Agri Crop stutble Subplow tone disturbance kot ellgebte 319 14 1 Historic Agri Crop stut,ble tt.1ted Aget ti t g t t,1e 321 15 10.5 Prehistoric Caw /Fnsppfng food processing
- - ' ==
g - .
g i
r l
I i
i
] i Table 1 (cent.)
a Present Ground Cosse tand tLs NR*r j Site Sec Accrom Cultural 5tte Type / Activity Potential **
a ho Stre Affil?ation : Land Use tieftations+
I 23CY. (Acres) q
- ' PRAIRIE /TOREST EDGE fn=34) f I?lstoric - D Agri Grass Subplow :one dist=5rbance %t eitstble 8
262 13 1 i Sebplow rene disttrbance not eligible 263 7 1.4 PerhlsMic / Knapping Agri Grass
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance Ect eligible 264* 7 2.9 Prehlstoric
/ Knapping Agri Grass Subplow zone disturbance elet eligthie 265 7 .3 Prehistoric
/Kaapping Agri Cu?tfvated Subplow tone disterbance Not etigible 266* IB .I Prehistoric Agri Grass Sutplow zene disturbance not elfgible i $ 268 '10 1.7 Prehistoric /Knoppleg 4
/ Knapping Agri Griss Subplow rene disturbance not c'ltgible 272* 15 .75 Prehistoric l'
i
/Knapp!np Monagri Sru*h Subplow rene distre ante Not eligtble i 280* 10 .1 Prehitterte Crop stubble Subplow rene dtsterbance not eltgtble 282 12 1.5 Prehl*teric / Knapping Agri l
hot eligible I
HIStortc Law Cecetery/9urtal Cemetery Forest. grass Avoid l 233 14 .$ !
1 i Forest Subplow rene disturbance hot eltglble 284* 14 .3 Prehistoric /Knappfcg Monagri i
/Kaapping Nonagri Brvsh Sabriew tone disturbance Mot elig101e i 286; '23 8 Prehlstoric Crr,,p stubble l
/Knappleg Monagri Brush Subplow rene distertance pnt eligible
! 290* 6 .75 Prehlstoric
! Crop stubble (talted Agri 291 6 6 Prehtstoric Casp / Knapping Agri Elfqlble Fabricating Processing
~
l i
i l .
i
t A m .
[
- l i i .
t l
i i !
I l
i I
Table 1 (cont.)
$lte See Approm Cul+. ural 5fte Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land the NRHP No Size Affil:stion tend itse tiettations* Potentt al**
i 210Y- (Acres) .
I 292* 7 1 Prehtstoric / Knapping Monagrt Terest Sebplow tw disturbance Not eligtble !
I Subriew rene distv & nce Mot eligtble 29P 7 .11 Prehtstoric / Knapping Menagrt Forest 294* 7 12.4 Prehistoric / Knapping Ronagri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not eligtble I
.5*
Prehistoric / Chert p s m c.t 'c agri flothing Subplow rene disturbance Not eligible e 295* 7 Knapping -
299 1 .1 HIstor1c U Nonagr1 i~orest subplow rene dIsturbam e not el1gible 304 10 3.2 late Woodiend/ Ca w /Knepping Aget Crop stubble tlatted nort Ellstble g M:ssissipplan Hunting -
Food processing 4
Tabricating 305 10 .25 Historic U Nonaget forest, t;pash Subplow rone disturbance mot eligible ,
i l 306* 10 1.5 Prehistorte / Knapping Monagri Brush, grass Subriew race disturbax e not eitgtble !
307* 10 1.2 PrehisterIc /Knapp1ng Nonagri Forest Subplow rone dIsturtance f*ot eligible
! 310* 10 .3 Prehistoric / Knapping Agri Crop stubb1, Subplow race disterbance Not ettgtbie 4
316* 13 .1 Frektstoric /Knapptng No agri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Mot eitgtble 317 13 .25 Historic U Agrt Grass Sabylow rene distwrt'ance Mot eligible l
318* 14 5.6 Prehtstoric /Enapping Agrt Crop stubble Subplew tree disturbance Mot eitgtble Prehtstoric / Knapping Agel Crop stubble Subplow rene disturbance mot eligtbie 320* 14 1.5 j
4 4
i-4
)
I
i.
N ^ .
. 1 I
i i
Table 1 (cent.)
i site' Sec Approx Cultural $1te Type / Activity Present Ground Cover Land 1)se MitHP 1 No Stre Affiliation tend Use tinttations+ Potentta1**
l 23CY- (Acres) 4
. 324* 23 ' .05 Prehistoric / Knapping Mesagri Forest Subplow rene disturbance Not eligthte 4
325* 23 . .05 Prehlsteric / Knapping Monagrt Forest Subplow tone disturbance not eligtble i
327 23 H!storic Nonagri Brush 5sbplow rone disturbance not el1gible l .2 11
)
- 329 23 ? 1ete Archa1c/ Camr /Knapptog Agrt trop stubble ttaited Agri Elfgible Early Woodland
- (blfa e manufacture) l, Cuttleg butchering
! 329 23 .5 Historic H Agrt b ass Maintain present we Ret ettgtbie i
q 330* 23 .2 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagrt Brush Matatatn present use Not eitg5ble l
I DISSECTED (*PLA!tD CAK-HICKORY FOREST (n-17) 236 18 .25 Historic H Monaget Forest Sublew rene disturbance hot eligible j
322 22 4.5 tote Woodland / Ca n ./Knarotag Nor2gri Weeds Limited Agri Elfgtbte i
Mississippian ,
Hunting 323* 22 .15 Prehtstoric / Knapping Monagrt Forest Subplow tone disturtrance not eligtble
! 326* 23 .5 Prehlsteric / Knapping Mcnagri Forest Sebplow rene disturbance not eligible 331* 24 .3 Prehtstarte / Knapping Agri Grass subplow rone disturbance not eitgtble
! 332* 25 .1 Prehtstor1c /Knspping Monagri Forest Subplow rone disturbance Not eligible
! 333 25 2 Hist 9ric H Monaget Fore.t. grass Subplew zone disturbance Not eltstble 9
i i
t i
. -. .c.,.._m .- _ , .-. .m s._._ . _._ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . , _ .,_;
, .m ~
l m
4 4
i Table 1 (cont.)
d 51te Cultural Site Type /Activtty See Approx . Present e M Cover Land use NaHP
- No Stre Affiliation Land Use ttattations+ Potential **
t 23CY- (Acres) t 334 25 1.1 PrehIstor1c Chert / Chert p. - m ~ .t Noragr1 Forest Aveid Elfgible source Knapping 335 24/25 18.5 Prehlstoric / Knapping Agri Grass subplow rone disturbance Not eligible 336 25 ' 5.75 Prehistoric /Knapptog Agri Grass Subplow rene disturbe w e Not eitgtbie 337 25 - Historic / Rock pfte Monagri Forest Subplow tone disturbance Not eligible 338* 25 2.4 Prehistoric- femapping Agri Grass Subpiow rose disterbance Not eligible 339 25 .25 Historic H Nonagtf Forest Arold Elfstble i _.
- ca 340* 26 .1 Prehlstoric / Knapping Mc+.agri Crass subplow roae disturbance Not eligit'le
]
341* 26 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping ftonagrf Forest Subpiow roae disturbax e het eligtble j 342 26 .1 Historic H Nonaget Weeds subel > rene disturbance Not eligible 9
34 3* 26 .1 Prehlstoric / Knapping Monaget Forest Subplow tone disturba g e Not eligible D155ECTED trLAND/BOTTOP00tD FDREST EDE (n 16) 9 * '
20 35 7.4 Middle?/ / Knapping Monagri Weeds Arold Late Woodland ' sutgitted to MSHPO 74 35 .1 Middle 7/ Hound / Burial? Nonagri Forest Avoid late Woodland Eligible 214 31 .1 Prehistoric / Knapping Monagri Forest Subplow rene disturbance het ett9tbte 344* 35 1 Prehistoric / Knapping Monaset setssh Subplow roae disturbance hot etistbte 1
4
- ~. == , - -. _ _ _ _ _ - - -
l
- m ._- -
i I
I I r
I i i i i i Table 1 (cont.)
I site Sec Apprez Cultural 5f*e Type /Activtty Present Ground Cover tend the NRHP Mo 51ze Af f f11atIon Land the Lf.1tatIons* Potential ** i 23CY- -(Acres) l [
i
- 345 35 1.25 Middle Arthatc7 Cag /r.nappfng Ay! Grass If*fted Ayf tilgible .
prilling 345 35 10 Dalton Ca m /Inappfng Agrt Crass Listted Agrf E11gible j Ihrnting. butchering l 347 35 1 Historic H Monagrf Brush Subpb rene distwebance Not eligtble l 348 35 .61 Historic H Agrf Grass Sobplow rene disturbance Act eligtble fr i
- 349 35 2.5 'rehistoric Camp /Enapping Monagrf Forest, brush Avoid Eligible !
I food processing [
l 350 35 .1 Late Woodland Mound / Burial Monagrf Forest Avold tilgib'.e
}.
351 35 5 Prehtstorfc Cag / Knapping Agel Grass Lim!ted Agef Elfg1ble Food processing i
352 36 6.2 Late Woodland / Knapping Agrf Crop stubble Llatted Agel tilgible/h4 forms:
M IC'55I"9 suNittM to I Hematite processing
- Pottery making M5HPO I
{ Groundstone senufacture i
i 353 36 8.4 Mfddle-Late Cave '/Enapping Ay7 trep stubble tialted Agrf tilgible 2
Archaic food processing late Wooe.1and
[ 35g 36 .25 Prehistoric Camp / Knapping Ikmagri Bevsh subplow one dIstwrbance Not eligible I
l 355
- 36 1.6 Prehistoru / Knapping Agri Culttwated Subplow rene disturbance hot elfgtble i
(,
L
- - t I f
i r e ~
- l f
I t
- i. !
I i 2-
'l l Table 1 (cont.)
i i 'S1te Sec Approm Cultural *Ofte Type / Activity Present Greund Cover Laad Use N#1F flo Stre Affiliation Land use Ltattations* Potenttal'*
23CY- (Acres) 1 356 36 11 Middle-Late Mrmnd/ Knapping Agri Weds Liutted aert Elfgtble Archefe Camp Food processteg
- late E m land 8vrfel l k nting Drilling 359 25/26/36 30 Early Archaic Camp /Knappfng Cemetery Grass forest Avolf Elletble/uR tete Archate Cemetery Food processing L'*tted Agri g, ,g;,,g ,
Middle 7 and Hunting
[
late Woodland to rm
.\ ' -
8
- I 4
i
(
I
[
5 i
h
\
f i !
I i .
I-i .
1 [
[
\
a ,
The more intensively occupied sites which exhibit a more ,
diversified range of prehistoric activities occupy the ridge tops and ;
I lower terraces where the di.,sected uplands meet the Missouri River floodplain. In this zone, site types range from burial mounds (23CY74) to possible villages (23CY356). '
Less intensive prehistoric occupations utilized the upland forest F
zone and the prairie zone in the northern half of the project area.
Sites in the prairie and prairie f orest edge, currently in agricultural production, are characterized by videly and sparsely distributed scatters of vaste chert flakes. Occasionally, clusters of flakes and tool f ragments mark a location where rnore time has spent manuf acturing <
or maintaining stone t'ols.
The most common artifacts recovered at all sites were chipped stone tools and the vaste flakes from their manuf acture. This is true on many
~
prehistoric archaeological sites, but it is especially common in the study area where quality chert resources are plentiful.
l tlistoric Resources Twenty nine historic components were recorded in the study area. Of these, 19 are determined to be habitation sites based on foundation remains and artifact scatters consisting of ceramics, building materials, and other domestic artifacts. The remaining 10 sites consist l 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 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 effected the archaeological integrity at sites 21
23Cy269, -271, -278, -279, ~285, -297, -300, -319, ~327, -329, -347, -
348, -273, -276, and -342.
l llistc 1 cal documentation and archaeological evidence indicate that i
the historic occupation period for 19 of 29 sites ranged f rom 1840 to 1975 with the majority of them, 14 (744), clustering between 1870 to G
1900. Ten sites were not assioned to a chronological period due to an i
insuf ficient amount of archaeological material and historical documentation. !
Mrchitectural Resources l Twenty one architectural sites were recorded within the project area. They vary from sites with a single structure or ruin to farmsteads with a house and several outbuildings and associated structures. Only i one site (21) dates exclusively to the nineteenth century, while the rest exhibit construction sequences spanning the nineteenth and i i
twentieth centuries or are restricted exclusively to the twentieth centary.
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 structures (14 each), while animal shelters number among the least t
common. Overall, the configuration of existing structure and ruins is typical of rural Missouri and the rural Midwest.
Evaluation of Site Significance Prehistoric Sites conclusions regarding site significance are a major objective of all cultural resources surveys and assessments, and are fully discussed 22 1
-m_ .,,-- .&_ .+-we.sr.-.,.4,. . . _-w.,- _..-,<...,+-.,-m., ,,,,,.r.--,,-,, c..wm,,,,,,.e ...,-,-5.y%,. ,,ry._,.r .._w,,,.-.. ,,,-g,-,.,,,. ,.gw.,--we-e-syr
,.,,-ry.,.__-ym,.. _
F in the Phase I and Phase II reports. The National Legister of lif atoric Places (NDilP) criteria for significance was applied to each of the sites recorded am. has been presented previously. Those sites which appear to be potentially eligible for nomination to the NRilP are summarized in the following section. For site specific information or additional l
background information, the reader is referred to the Phase I report I
(Ray et al. 1903). While the NRilP criteria are usef ul f or many historic and historic archlectural sites (e.g., a president's birthplace or a battlefield), they often are too general to establish clearly the potential significance of a prehistoric archaeological site or to justify Phase II investigations at these sites (cf. Comptroller General 1981: 23-32). The Comptroller General's report notes that "it is impractical for [the Department of the] Interior to design all~
encompassing criteria by which archaeological sites can be centrally j l
evaluated for state and local significance" (1981:25-26). Thus, i l
significance is er.tablished through a process of recommendations to the 1 1
MullPO by recoquized professional archaeologists which are then subject to review and evaluation by the MSilPO. In order to initiate and l facilitate this process, eight working criteria were employed by American Resources Group, Ltd., to evaluate potential NRilP eligibility of each of the prehistoric archaeological sites recorded on the residual lands. For the purposes of this evaluation, a site was considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places if it exhibited one or_more of the following attributes.
- 1. T.ite appeared to offer the potential to answer specific local or regional research problems.
23 i
- 2. site exhibited culturally diagnostic artifacts suggesting succe s t.i ve occupations through time, but artifact densities sere light
- 3. organic staining was present, suggesting an intensive occupation, but the sice did not produce culturally diagnostic artifacts.
- 4. site occupied a unique or poorly understood microenvironmental zone.
- 5. site represented a cultural period which has received little research attention.
- 6. artifact densities were medium to heavy, suggesting an intensive occupation, but no culturally diagnostic artif acts were recovered.
- 7. evidence-suggested that the site may represent a poorly understood segment of a particular settlement system.
- 8. site contained cultural material (animal bone) or artifacts (metatt) .hich 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 l National Register criteria which relate to archaeological sites: "(d) j that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Rederal Register 1986:31115). These provide the '
field investigator _and the revievar with specific guidelines vith which to evaluate archaeological resources, justify recommendations of additional research or no further research, and to make statements of 24
l 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: 4
- 1. Site failed to meet any of the eight criteria.
- 2. Site produced very few artif acts suggesting a highly transient ,
i occupation. Of the 41 prehistoric sites considered potentially nonsignificant, 27 produced 5 or fewer vaste flakes (35%), and 14
. produced 10 waste flakes or fever (18%) and no other evidence of prehistoric occupation. Small sites producing not'ning more than a few '
waste flakes and lacking culturally diagnostic artif acts of f er little rescarch 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 ,n 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 Illstoric Places.
. llistoric at chaeological sites vere considered nonsignificant based on the criteria of the National Register of IIistoric Places, integrity,.
temporal considerations, and the availability of published sources of historic documentation other than t'io archaeological record.
1 25 1
i,-.,.. . , - . . - . - . . ~ . ~ . . - - - - - - . . . . - , , - - . ~ . . . , . , . - - . ... + -..- . -- .,.
1 3
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 i
brief summary of each site is provided below. For more detailed discussions of these sites potentially eligible for nomination to the i
i NRHP, the reader is referred to the Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment report (Ray et al. 1983) and the Phase II investigations at 23CY20, 23CY352, 23CY359 (Truver 1985).
23CY20 The site is a village or residential base camp and may be ,
associated with either or both the large earthen mound (23CY74) and low rock mound (23CY350) located on top of the aijacent ridge system or the mound group (?' 356) on the opposite ridge 700 m to the east. Similar pottery sherds suggest 23CY20 is at least contemporaneous, 11 not affiliated with, 23CY352, another v.illage si'a located on a similar terrace 500 m east of the site.
An analysis of the chert sample irom 23CY20 indicates an unexpected F
selection for locally occurring Durlington chert, probably procured i entirely f rom stream deposited sources, and supplemented by Jef ferson City chert, another locally occurring chert. The pref erence. f or Burlington chert may be due to its susceptibility and responsiveness to heat t rea tme*1t . Over 50% of the Burlington artif acts at the site had been heat altered.
Based on reported materials from the site, Evans and Ives (1973:10) suggested the site is a multicomponent occupation, spanning 10,000 years including a Middle Woodland component. However, the pottery recovered 26
, - - . , ~ - , , , , , , - - -
t-~ ~
- l l
. ---- , _ ______ __s l
- ^
_ _ ~ __ - - . .
- NY . D, gy 191 ' ;,
N e.
's 267 O ' 'y s.,'
- l
- ' t . **[
'\ f -. .
k' /I gy, l
- .. .._.p.e_,; --
7 egl . t '.. .g .
~ c.\
j -.. : .
$ ..\ }* j! v p' ,&
s ..
.s sar....nl.
.t..g ' g
.1
- e. r 3I" g J. ls
.n.-~
l iS i,. , ' , N *-- - ~gl. 256 ;
p,. fLp; ',g
,(%
. '^m
' 304.
f,,,)'M I
fR 7' ' ' " r
/
.,I l 303
. . .; d.......
fhp( , ~ ' Q n / ' ; .
. i
\ ~l j8 Q o% y*
?
,0^^ g l
- ~. ? f .:. . .
Qu '..Oe...g \ .:. .* :?......r--
L ,74 y
.-3 y p
i y'. . .. 7a i .
... f.'q .
f.
I. / ,/ ..... .. } & '
. -< / e> e i.
hl . C,75%50' s
~ .
'd*
\.,', , f- dl, ,
"\ g4 I.
/
/ \( l y *i $'
,' 9'
- 5' l, ' ,*. ,
~'el* ,
< n >
\
i 5 .
, &4l$a .
=
.s .
L... .. . i". .
MAP 3 328 8,'E 7, .
. 1I
,N Operation and Maintenance Zones ..
Y. ; 4 with Significant Cultural 8tesources ; i y.
,. r). / ' ~ 334 ',*
3 sl. ';
,e +
e m eno_
- m.. .. ;
'\
._...,s Il **
W *m.e w a,n
' r se ausu ,
ig g ' , . 339 ., - ( ; g._..
i - t.
Acees et Grew a.ess (couneyl
. , r,.
.. t., a-4.
a t c , , .--
.N p eg,
. ,g ' :.u
. ~
l L'
l
.asaa e anau 1. se cases , Arw ter em acteu . '
/
l Reestas see fe.aen *esesse 4 boosete
-*- Jan se tiscwe tee, too a/*
- M ,
f' sn - ce r e .; ..
. t.ees..e arose :F' '
e sic * , d,' ,l ..f
, -- .4 x .. /
c (envy town bewaar T.an .5 nere g,. /
a, d, l p t , t,,,n..ia,e
( M:$ Operations and Maintenance Zones ,, f) . ;
li .
@ Prenistoric Archaeological Site ' '
l C') Histeric Archaeological Site '. / g5 ! 'g,1 '
356 .
L l w M A +4 site a m a t ,-[#. iB - 4 ' . . . . . . .
,* 352
/d+._
,,ec eee. ., ,rs, n V,a..)"Gi
, }- . 250 ,
,,,i e 74- g- g \ %.3 p 4g y - - 1. w , ,
p 27 .c .cccis wt
from the sit.<, a Scallotn arrow point, and other possible Woodland artif acts (ovans and Ives 1979a:19) indicate that the major occupation was probably Late Woodland (1500-1000 B.P.). The site's topographic setting indicates a high potential for buried critural horizons (Map 2).
Phase II testing conde:ted in 1985 varified the NRilP significance of this site (Traver 1985).
UCY74 The site iA apparently a burial mound and is probably representative of the Boone Phase in central Missouri. The setting high os a bluf f overlooking the Mir.souri 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). This -
probable mortuary site may be associated vith the village site (23Cy20) located on a terrace 600 m to the east. The Boone Phase is largely confined within the hover Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman 1980:121; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly af filiated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1900:112; Denny 1964:158) which ranges f rom 1500-1000 B.P.
23CY256 The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The Big Sandy Iivtched point suggests a data range Irom 7000-5000 B.P. (Chapman 1975:242). Thus, the site is affillated with the Middle Archaic period, s 23CY257 The site is a_ field camp and knapping station with little e<idence of long-term habitation. The high percentage (84.6%) of flakes greater 2
than 2 cm suggests an initial lithic reduction station, and the almost l
l 28
. . _ . . . - - _ _ ..,_.,.m . . . , - - - - - . _ . . . . - . . _ - _ - - , . _ , - . . - . _ . . _ , - _ . . - . . - _ . . - ~ . _ - - . . . _ , . - - _ - - _ . - - -
exclusive use of Burlington chert indicates procurement of nearby chert resources. The tool types suggest fabricating and processing activities.
Site 23CY257 var revisited in May of 1982. A surface inspection of the main portion of the site revealed a moderate scatter of predominantly large secondary decortication ilakes concentrated at the head of a ravine. Also located were three large bifaces, one large preform, one mano, and a probable platform preparation abrader; only the preform and the platform preparation abrader vere collected. It was noted that many of the cecondary decortication flakes and one of the I large bifaces were knapped from stream deposited chert. The high percentage of secondary decortication flakes, the rel ively high number of bifaces (6 total) for a small field camp, the preform, and the platform preparation abrader all suggest the site was used primarily for initial reduction and biface manufacture. The fact that the majcrity of artifacts with cortex surfaces was knapped from stream deposited nodules suggests that most of the chert probably was procured frcs the nearby
- ravine and transported to the top of the ridge for reduction. The large li preform, which was not heat treated, exhibits several attributes that a
are suggestive of an Etley Stemmed projectile point / knife (Chapman
{
1975:246) including the large form (14 cm in length), blade shape, and the preliminary shaping of the hafting element. Because of this Etley-like projectile point / knife, a Late Archaic affiliation Fan been assigned to the site. The probable platform preparation (or antler flaker abrader) is a sandstone slab, 12 x 18 cm, and exhibits two parallel. slightly sinuous grooves on one surface.
29 i
. _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ~
_ _ _ _ _ .__ _ _ m__ _ . - _ _ _ __ _
23CY267 The site is a small field camp and knapping station with no L evidence of substantial habitation. Analysis of the chert sample from 23CY267 ludicates an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert, I
mostly procured f rom streat cep m a; however, the two Jef f erson City flakes indicate transportation of that chert irom at least 1.5 km I
l distant. A fluted Clovis projectile point indicates a Paleo-Indian i occupation ca. 12,000 B.P.
23CY291 The site is a small field camp with three discrete knapping l
stations. The relatively high percentage (63.4%) of flakes greater than 2 cm2 indicates initial reduction lithic workshops. The artifactual data a l t., o 4ndicate an almost exclusive use of local Burlington chert,
,. procured from both stream deposited and residual sources; however, the Jef f erson City flake indicates transportation of that chert from approximately 1.8 km distant. The tool types suggest fabricating and l
l processing activities. Cultural affiliation is unknown.
L l t
23CY303 ;
The site is a small field camp and knapping station. The projectile l- point bane and serrated biface midsection suggest activities related to '
l hunting and butchering, and the pitter / hammer / grinding stone indicates plant processinj activities. The Rice Lanceolate component suggested by l
the point base and serrated midsection is af filiated with the Early !
Archaic--period (9000-7000 B.P.) and- possibly continues into the Middle l
Archaic (Chapman 1975:253).
1 i
l L
l 30 -
- l. l l
i l
. - . . - - . - . , . . - - , . . . . ~ . . . . - . - - - - - - . - . - - . , -- ,.~ -,-- .. . - - , . . - . - - . . - . . . ~ - - _ . . - . . . . . . . ~ . , . . . . . - . . . -
I 23CY304 l l
The site appears to be a seasonal field camp and knapping station. l n
The high percentage (69.7%) of flakes greater than 2 cm' indicates initial lithic reduction; two secondary decortication flakes actually had diameters of 16 cm. Other activities suggested by the tool types include hunti*ig and butcherir.9, fabricating and processing, and plant food preparation.
Analysis of the chert sample f rom 23CY304 indicates a predominant utilization of Burlington chert, neostly procured from the nearby creek bed. A small triangular arrow point recovered at the site is aff111ated with the Late Woodland /Mississjppi period which ranges from 1200-500 -
B.P. In the study area.
23CY309 The site appears to represent a seasonal or reoccupied ifeld camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert sample fron 23CY309 indicates a predominant use of local Burlington chert, mostly procured from stream deposited sources. Actizities other than flint knapping suggested by_ the tool types include hunting and butchering.
The Etley Stemmed projectile point / knife is affiliated with the Late Archaic period (5000-3000 B.P.) and is a diagnostic artifact of the Booth assemblage and Cuivre River ceremonial complex in northeast Missouri (Chapman 1975:246).
23CY314 The site is probably a small field camp _and knapping station with one and possibly two features visible on the surface. The feature (s) may be a simple fire hearth (s) or possibly chert heat treatment pit (s), The I-I 31 l .,
l
= - - . - . . _ . - - . - . . . - . - . - - -
heat-altered chert was exclusively Burlington chert probably procured from the nearby creek. Cultural affiliation is unknown.
23_CY32)
The site is a small ifeld camp and knapping station with evidence i
of plant food processing activities. Based on available data, chert procurement was predominantly from the closer Burlington sources. !
Ilovever, one-third of the artifacts were made from Jefferson City chert located at 1 cast twice as far away. Cultural affiliation is unknown.
23CY322 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 cm 2 (61.3%) indicates initial lithic reduction. A triangular arrow point suggests the site was also used as a hunting camp during the Late Woodland / Mississippian period ca. 1200-500 B.P.
Analysis of the limited chert sa.nple f rom 23CY322 indicates a preference for Burlington chert. Both stream deposited and residual chert sources were utilized.
23CY328 The site is a small field camp and knapping station lacking evidence of permanent habitation. The artifactual evidence indicates bifacial tool manuf acturing, probably for cutting and butchering purposes. A corner-notched, haf ted too is probably af filiated with the Late Archaic /Early Woodland transition period, which ranges from 4000-2500 B.p. In the study area.
32
l l l
l DCY334 i 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 tact that 67.5% of the l_ 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 nouthwest exposure of the
- ridge. Thermal pretreatment was also unnecessary due to the inherent fine-grained -nature of the chert. 'Ihe artif actual evidence supports a nearly exclusive use of this residual Jef f erson City chert source.
Cultural aff111ation is unknown.
23CY345 The- site -is a small field camp and knapping station.- The haf ted drill indicates activities such as stone, bone and/or wood borisg, and the chcrt analysis indicates a heavy reliance on Burlington and, thus, stream deposited chert resources. Suggested cultural affiliation _for the ,
site based on the haf ted drill is Middle Archaic (7000-5000 li.P.).
23CY346 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. A chert analysis of the actif acts from 23CY316 indicates a selection for and predominant utilization of Burlington chert, probably procured entirely from stream deposited sources, over readily available residual /
redeposited Jefferson City chert. The fact that 74% of the flakes collected-were less than 2 cm -2 suggests primary reduction at the chert sources (creek beds) and tertiary reduction of finishing / resharpening on the site. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by tool types 33
_ _ . . _ , - . _ _ _, _ _ ,_._ ~ . _ _ __ _ _ - - _ _ _ , _ ,
l include huntin1 and butchering. The three Callaway chert flakes, all found in one shovel test, indicate some use, although minimal, of this scarce chert known to occur 6.5 km away.
A Dalton point recovered at the site represents the transitional period iveen Paleo-Indian and Archaic times or Late Paleo/Early Archaic period, ca. 10,(>00-9000 B. P . (Chapman 1975:96; Goodyear 1982).
Dalton points have been found in situ in the earliest levels of nearby Arnold Research Cave and Graham Cave (Chapman 1975:245).
23CY349 The site is probably a reeccupied camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities. The analysis of the chert sample from 23CY349 indicates a heavy reliance on or preference for Durlington chert, probably procured from local tedeposited sources, over readily available residual or stream deposited Jetforson City chert.
This small habitation site may be associated or affiliated with 23CY74, a Middle or Late Wocdland mound located at the southern end of i'.e site.
23CY350
'This small rock f eature is probably a mortuary mound site and may represent a Boone Phase mound. A few vaste flakes suggests that flint knapping also van carried on in the site vicinity. The setting high on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River Valley is consistent with the location of Boone Phase mounds (Denny 1964:137), and bLrials do sometimes occur under stone cairns (Denny 1964:141). The Boone Phase is largely confined within the lover Missouri Valley Locality II (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:154), and it is firmly af filiated with the Late Woodland period (Chapman 1980:112; Denny 1964:158).
34
23CY351 The site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station with evidence of plant processing activities. There is also some evidence of a possible hearth on site. Analysis of the chert artifacts from 23CY351 indicates a predominant use of and preference for !!urlington chert, probably procured entirely from redeposited sources, over readily available residual or stream deposited Jefferson City chert. Most of the limited amount of Jefferton City chert that was used probably came from -
residual cources. One-fourth of the Burlington artifacts were thermally altered, whereas only two flakes knapped f rom Jef f erson City chert had been heat treated. The fact that three-quarters of the 11aken vere less than 2 cm2 suggests primary reduction at the chert sources and tertiary reduction or finishing / resharpening on the site. Cultural affiliation is unknown.
23CY352 The site is a village or residential base camp and is probably associated with the mound group (23CY356) atop the adjacent ridge.
Similar pottery sherds suggest 23CY352 is at least contemporaneous if not af filiated with 23CY20, 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 manufacture of groundstone tools, butchering, drilling, hematite processing, plant food processini), and pottery making and food preparation / storage.
As evidenced by the sand, grit, and dolomite tempered pottery, the major com;onent at 23CY352 is probably affiliated with the Late Woodland period and n.ay be associated with the Doone phase of central and east-35
l I
central Missouri; suggested da.tes range from 1500-1000 B.P. Both Boone Plain and Moreau or Boone Cord Marked pottery types are identified as I 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 ir the Lower Missouri Valley II Locality (Chapman 1980:276, 280-281, 289). The site's location on an alluvial terrace suggests a high potential for buried cultural deposits.
Phase II testing produced two radiocarbon dates, A.D. 470 1 140 and A.D. 830 f_ 100 and verified Middle Woodland and Late Woodland occupations, the latter represented by artif acts diagnoetic of Maramec Gpring Phase, Boone. Phase, and Moreau Subphase (Traver 1985). This site
~
is eligible for nomination to the NRilP.
23CY353 The site is probably a reoccupied seasonal camp and knapping station. Analysis of the chert artif acts f rom 23cy353 indicates a predominant utilization of Burlington chert (71%), probably procured I entirely f rom stream deposited sources, and a supplemental role (29%)
for Jefferson City chert. Even among the Jef ferson City chert that vac l used. . there was a tendency to procure it from nearby stream deposited .
l sources rather than from residua! sources, i
j Examination of the debitage suggests primary, secondary, and tertiary reduction on the site. Activities other than flint knapping suggested by tool types include hunting and butchering, hide processing, and plant food preparation / processing. The incidence of heat treatment 36' w ww-+.+p -m_.- ,-e-werme--e-------w r+-cr-- .s+n-----rw----w-w--- w-=+w--ee-*-- ae----* - - - - => - - ----a- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
among Burlington chert tools was ver'r high at this site -- 68% of the tools are thermal 11 altered as compared to 23% of the debitage.
The diagnostic tools found at 23CY353 indicate a multiccinponen t site with predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. Although possibl*/ inhabited during the Early Archaic period, the major components suggested by the surf ace collection tentatively have been affiliated 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 c*;1tural deposits.
23CY356 The site is a seasonal camp and knapping station with a probable mortuary mound complex located on the south end of the site. Five lov
, earthen mounds were located, recorded, and tested with a coil probe.
Analysis of the chert .artif acts f rom 23CY356 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 activitle; suggested by the tool types and debitage include hunting and butchering, drilling, plant food processing, and human buria' Twenty two bif acial thinning fickes indicate a fair amount et bif ace manuf acture/ maintenance, and at least three pieces of fire-cracked rock suggest the presence of a hearth on the site.
The #!e. gnostic artif acts found at 23CY356 indicate a multicomponent 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 l
37 li a
Big Sandy-like points represent styles which may have persisted into the Late Archaic period.
The major component at 23Cy356 is afflifated with the Late Woodland period (15000-1000 B.P.) and may reprocent a manilectation of the Itoone Phase in cast-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-Len.pered sherd (Graham Plain) f ound on mound A is similar to Late Woodland pottery f ound at Graham Cave and Arnold Research Cave (Chapman 1980:121). In addition, the Rice Side Notched, Steuben Expanded Stemmed, and Scallorn Corner Notched projectile points found on the site are all characteristic of Late Woodland Boono Phase (Chapman 1980:115), This Late Woodland component is probably associated with the village or residential base camp (23CY352) located on the adjacent terrace directly below or vest of the ridge and 23Cy356, 23CY359 From the small (selective) amount of material collected during the preliminary reconnaissance, it is evident that the site is probably a seasonal camp and knapping station. Although the small selective sample L
I is biased toward tools, there was no bias in collecting artifact chert types. A chert analysis indicates that there may have been a preference for makin4 tools out of Burlington chert since all of the projectile points and all but one bif ace were knapped f rom this f ossilif erous chert. Activities other than flint- knapping suggested by the tool types include hunting and butchering and plant food processing.
l 38 l
l
m.-._-_--_ . _ _ . _ _ ._-___-._________..--.---.m ,.,......---r- .,,.m_ ...m_. - -
- , , --,e, , ..p., .w..w ..,,-__r%,,- y---,.y y ,_.- - .-..- y__, ,_,,.,>
l e l
The diagnostic artifacts indicate tio site is multicomponent with predominantly Archaic and Woodland occupations. The side-nutched 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- 'he Itig Sandy-like point probably representing the Middle to Late haic period ( 7 0 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 15 . 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 li . P . ) point type (Chapman 1975:312).
Phase 11 testing confirmed the function and multiple Archaic occupations at this site (Traver 1985). The site is eligible for nomination to the National Register of llistoric places. ,
Significant Historic Archaeological Sites As indicated earlier, many of the former homes and farmsteads in the study area vere razed and impacted by subsequent clearing. As a result, archaeological integrity is lacking at most of the sites; however, two sites appear to be potentially significant and cffer some potential for further archaeological and historical research.
Site 23Cy261 is an undisturbed homestead in the upland prairie zone. The artif act assemblage from the site ranges from ca. 1840-1929.
The site is depicted on early maps in 1876, 1897, and 1919. This evidence indicates some continuity Irom 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 offer an opportunity to study this change in the archaeological record.
39
Site 23Cy339 is a log structure, partially in ruin, located in the rugged fotent zone in the southern part of the study area (Map 2). The site's unique location on a rocky hillside poses interesting historical research questions.
Ilintorical Archit etaral Sites When measured against the criteria of the National Register of Ilistoric Places, the historic architectural sites and f eatures do not appear to represent a significant 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 ref erred to the Phase I cultural resources survey report (Ray et al. 1983).
Potential Adverse Im J acts Protecting and preserving cultural resources from a variety of destructive activities stimulated by an expanding society is fundamental to cultural resources management. The recognition over 85 years ago that archaeological and historical sites were being destroyed and would continue to be destroyed provided the impetus for the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Today, two types of adverse impacts, direct and indirect, are recognized (Schif fer and llouse 1975) . Direct impacts are usually major land altering activities carried out in conjunction with road, reservoir, pipeline, stock pond, and landfill constructjon, to mention just a few. The effect 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 40
1 ,
construction activities. Cultivation related to agricultutal 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 silyt ultural harvesting techniques may have varying degrees of adverse effects to cultural resources; however, a n.ew road constructed to the propor.ed 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 ured for dam till) shich may effect other archaeological sites. The construction of equestrian or hiking trails on the residual lands would have little or no direct adverse impacts to cultural resources, yet, potential indirect adverse impacts could be high due to increased public exposure to archaeological sites. For example, a hiking trail near the prehistoric mound ( 2'lCY74, Map 2) would increase the opportunities for vandalism, malicious looting, or uninf ormed collecting. Some examples or potential indirect impacts might include increased public usage of all recreational facilities on the residual lands, soil erosion on archaeological sites, and timber harvesting.
Examination of these potential impacts serves to point out the need for a cultural resources management plan and the usefulness of a management plan as a short and long range planning tool, both for Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation. Generally, 41
the current land use management plan which emphasizes wildlife g management and recreation is compatible with the needs of cult ural
,,,Q
~ ,1 3 resources management. Potential adverse impacts from cultivation, erosion, trail construction, picnic grounds, silviculture, etc., are not g as destructive as some other types of activities Also, agricultural v.7 e;.
crop rotation may be altered easily tt .ccommodate archaeological site i e preservation without compromising the requirerent of wildlif e food and i} , habitat production. For example, limited agricultural activities could _
- w "i <
occur at some of the potentially significant a r cit a c o l o q '.c a l s ites without adverse effects to the site. The various types of land use g restrictions and limitations will be central to the specifi management recommendations.
Management Recommendations and Guidelines The key management elements with regard to the prehistoric and bi soric archaeoloolcal sites which will be of primary concern to Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation will be current land use, land use limitations, and the statement of ptential -
Natiotal Register eligibility.
s 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 family plots, long abandoned and overgrown with brnsh 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 r.nd winter of 1981.
42
. . . _ . , . . ~ - . . - . . - . - - . - - - - .
_ . - - - - - - - . _ - . ~ . _ _ . . .
For management purposes, land use recommendations consist of three types of limitations: (1) subplov zone disturbance, (2) avoid, and (3) limited agriculture (Table 1). A land use limitation of "subplov zone" is recommended at all sites which are not considered potentially eligible for nomJnation to the National Register but vill be protected by the recommendations in this management plan. Avoidance requires that a site's surf ace and subsurf ace 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 recommenc Phase II testing of potentially eligible sites identified during the Phase I survey to further evaluate National Register eligibility (Weichman 1979). Three potentially eligible sites (23CY20, 23CY352, 23C)359) are located in an area of potential ent:*enmental impact related to the operation and maintenance of the plant or associated facilities. Phase II testing was conducted at the three sites in 1985 by American Resources Group (Traver 1985). The resul' of these investigations indicated that all three sites were eligible for nomination to the NRHP. National Register forms were completed for the -
g sites and submitted to MSHP0 following -completion of the assessments I
(Fraver 1985:133); Sites 23CY352 and 23CY359 are located within transmission line rights-of-way and 23CY20 in the area of the railroad spur. " Areas of Potentit.1 Effects of the Undertaking", as defined in 36CFR800.2. Current operations and maintenance activities in the-vicinity of the three sites is as follows:
43 a
A n ,
i e
T41e 2 ;
Management Recoarnendations for Potentf ally Significant Sites Site Stre Location Cul tun d Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resourca Management No (Acres) Affiliation tiet ta tions + Recorsnendations*
23CY-20 7.4 SEl, NW1.'SW1. S M' Middle Woodland Weeds Limited Agri kreserve. Phase Il testing completed
" ' '" 'd "S 74 .I SW1. NWI. SEl. 535 Middle-Late Woodland Forest Avoid Preserve. Phase 11.1f threatened l Burial sound j 256 5.9 NEl, SEi SEl 511 M!ddle Archaic Crop Limited Agrf Preserve. Pnase 11 1f t5reatened i
257 14.8 SEl. W1. SEl 51 Late Archaic Brush, crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 4( tt tatened .
g 267 8.2 MW1. 5 0 . SWI. 52 Paleo-Indian trop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase Il If threatened l 4
291 6.0 WI W1. SWI Unknown Crep Limited Agri Preserve. Phase il if threatened NEl. NEl. SEl 56 thknown Crop Limited Agri r eve. Phase 11 f f threatened i 303 14.8 SEl. SEl. 510 304 3.2 NWI. NW1. SEl 510 Late Woodland Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase !! ff threatened !
Mississipplan 309 13.6 El. NW1. NEl. 510 Late Archaic Crop Limited Agrj Preserve. Phase II ff threatened 314 .25 NEl. NEl NEl. 511 Unknown Crop Limited Agri Preserw, Phase al if threatm +'
321 10.5 NEl. . .. NEl. 515 Unknown Crop tietted Agri Preserve. Phase !! f f threatened 322 4.5 SWI, NEl NEl. $22 Late Woodland Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase !! If threatened
. Mississippfan 328 1.0 NW1. SW1. SEl. S23 Late Archatc7 Crop Limited Agri Preserve. Phase li if threatened 4 Limited Agriculture-see page 33 Avold-set page 39
- 0&M-operation and maintenance 3
, _ . , .. - -d
m . . _ -
~D ,
='
I
- Table 2 (cont.)
, Site Size Location- Cultural Ground Cover Land Use Cultural Resources Management No 23CY.
(Acres)- Affiliation tim 1tation5+ Reccomendations*
.334 1.1 51. NW1. NE!. 525 dnknown forest Avoid Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened
'S 1.25 54. SEl NEl .. Middle Archaic Grass Limited Aeri Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened
,
- lEl. NEl. SEl.'535 346 10.0 N1. NW1. SEI Early Archaic Grass Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened SEl SWI. NEl. 535 Dalton 349- 2.5 W1. NW1. SEl. 535 Late Woodland forest Avoid Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened 350- .1. SWI, W1. SEl. $35 Late Woodland Forest Avoid Burial sound? Preserve. Phase !! if threatened
.351 S.0 WI. NEl SEI linknown Grass Limited Agri
- c. Preserve rhase !! if threaterted U1 NEl.. NEl. SEl 535 352 6.2 NW1. NEl. SVI Hiddle and late Crop Lleited Agri NEl. W1. SW1.136 Woodland Preserve. Phase 11 testing completed 1985, NR forms submitted to MSHDO 353 8.4 El. NEl. W1. 536 Hiddle and late Crop Limited Agri Archaic Preserve. Phase 11 if threatened 355' 11.0 Nl NEl,,J1 Middle Archalc Weeds Limited Agri Preserve. Phase 11 f f threatened SEl.,SEl. NW1. 536'
. late Woodland 359 30.0 W1. NWI. 536 ' Middle Archaic Grass Elose upper road to Preserve, Phase ll testing cornpleted late Woodland prevent erosion; 1985, f.R forms submitted to MSHPO Avoid 261 1.0 NEl NEl. NW1. 513 Historic Grass Limited Agri -Phase 11 evaluation if threatened 339 1.0 SEl. SEl, NW1. 525 Historic forest Avnid Thasa 11 evaluation if threatened
.-~ -
l l
l 1
The railroad spur is no longer in use and has been abandoned in place. Therefore, no further operational or maintenance activities vill '
take place in the area of 23Cy20. This site has been fenced and any activity within the fence, including vehicular traf fic (other than routine grass maintenance), is prohibited.
Activities associated with maintenance and repair operations on transmission facilities vill be those associated with vehicular movements, when required, along access roads and rights-of-way. No earthmoving vork is required. Herbicides will be applied, as necessary, to maintain rights-of-way and trees vill be trimmed to maintain the required -line clearance. Vegetation growth will be controlled on a periodic basis using a standard f arm tractor with a bush hog in tov.
Vegetation is normally cut above the ground surf ace with no ploving or excavation required. No other maintenance activities are anticipated.
In accordance with Callaway Plant written procedures, any new construction or change in procedures requires that the following two questions be answered:
- 1. Will there be a physical change to site grounds or land layout?
- 2. Will there be any excavation on UE property outside of owner controlled area fence?
If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then a Final Environmental Evaluation must be performed by Radiological Engineering.
This includes a full evaluation of cultural resources impacts. If it is determined that any cultural resources site could be impacted, then the new constructJon or procedure vill be altered to avoid the effect or the NRC and SHPO vill be contacted for consultation prior to 1aplementation of the activity or procedure.
In addition to tue above plant procedural safeguards, the Missouri
-Department of Conservation (DOC) has been notified that activities such as fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation will be planned to minimize opportunities for vandalism, malicious looting, or uninformed collecting by not directing attention to potentially st inificant cultural resources. DOC is required to submit all plans for any-land disturbing activities (including parking lots, roads,- and any new significant public attractions) to Radiclogical Engineering for re'iew prior to implementation.
It is the opinion of the vr. iter that the operations and maintenance activities described above do not constitute any effect to sites 23CY20, 23CY352, and 23CY359, 46 a
The other 22 sites identified as potentially eligible f or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places vill be protected from adverse impact by placing a conservative protection boundary zone around each site. The protection boundary vill range from 50 m to 100 m depending upon site specific circumstances. Por example, at many sites, the boundary stakes are set along the fence line even though the artifact distribution is well out in the field.
Limited agriculture can continue at potentially significant sites presently being used for agricultural purposes. Limited agricultural activity with reference to rotentially significant archaeological sites pe . shallow discing to allow the soving of grass seed. The rationale for this recommendation is twofold. First, these sites are often surrounded by major row crop areas and to allow brush and forest vegetation to return could be inconvenient to other agricultural activities. Second, the sites could be used for hay production and grazing without adverse affects to the cultural resources.
Final management considerations and objectives are: to preserve the potentially significant archeeological sites in place, provide recommendations for nonsignificant resources, and provide specific guidelines for potentially significant c.rchaeological sites for Union Electric Company and the Missouri Department of Conservation. The I
following guidelines vill insure site preservation and f acilitate the management objectives of Union Electric Ccmpany.
To insure the identification and preservation of all prehistoric
- archaeological sites and these sites potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP, metal reinforcing rod stakes have been placed at the corners of all sites along field edges. Boundaries which f all within 47 J
1 i agricultural fields (pastures) are marked with wooden lath to avoid damaging f arm machinery. All stake tops are pain
- ed and flagged. The boundsries are placed approximately 50 m to 100 m buyond site limits to provide a proper buffer zone.
In addition, all archaeological sites are identified with an aluminum plate affixed to a reinforcing rod upon which is painted the Archaeological Survey of Missouri site number (Figure 1). These site numbers are - keyed to conficantial site location maps and field notes describing the marker and site locations. A map with accompanying notes will be on file at the Environmental Services Department of Union Electric Company.
- 1. Land altering activities are prohibited at all potentially significant archaealogical sites ' (Table 1). These activities include, but ute 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 siiviculture.
-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 Environmental Services Department of Union Electric Company should occur well in advance of any land ' use activities outside those found in Table 1 which may affect the potentially significant sites. The Environmental Services Department 48 4
B i =
g 22 ae em, seM acm o
/
/
I Figure 1. Site Identification Marker will insure identification of site boundaries, will establish buf fer zones, and contact other regulatory agencies when appropriate.
- 4. Phase II testing for the purpose of further evaluating significance vill not occur until a potentially significant site is threatened by adverse impacts (Tatle 2).
- 5. The architectural sites o't the residual lands are not eligible for nomination to the National R691 ster of Historic Places and are not subject to land use limitations.
- 6. There is the remote. possibility thaw the prehistoric and historic archaeological sites considered noneligible for nomination to the Nationti Register may contain useful information. Current land use (ie. farming) may occur at these sites but land altering activities are permitted only af ter con'suitation 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 49
- f. . ... s P
there is any question tegarding the exact location of a site, the Environmental Services Department shoudl be contacted.
- 8. There is the possibility that sites 23CY20, 23CY332, and 23CY353 contain buried cultural occupations. The Environmental Services
-Department should be aware of this, and future c esearch pians should account for these buried deposits.
- 9. Although a very intensive survey was conducted, tere is the possibility that undiscovered resources may be present. If artifactu or cultural features are encountered during construction projects, supervisors vill be instructed to notify the Environmental Services Department immediately.
The phase I cultural resources survey and assessment'and the Phase II testing of three sites in the operations and maintenance zone of the Callaway residual lands along with the several other survey and assessments of the direct impact zones adequately meet the letter and spirit of federal laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources.
Further, responsibic use of this management plan vill insure the
, continued preservation of the potentially significant archaeological resources into the future.
\ l l-l 1
50 l
i a
- w ,
i REFERENCES Chapman, Carl H.
1975- The ArchaeoloqY of Missouri.._I. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. ,
1980 The ArchaeoloqY of Missouri, II. University of Missouri ,
Press, Columbia.
Comptroller General of the United States 1981 Are Agencios Doing Enough or Too Much for Archaeological Preservation? Guidance Needed. Report to the Chairman, Committe of Interior and Insular Af f airs, Hour.e of Representatives. U.S. Government Accounting Office Report CED-81-61. Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Denny Sidney G.
1964 A Re-2 valuation of the Boono Focus: A Late Woodlcnd Manifestation in Central Missouri, Unpublished Ph.D. ,
dissertation, Department of Anthropology., University of Micsouri, Evans, David R.
1975 Propos&l-for Mitigation of Tepact on Archaeological Site
'23Cy20. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 1979 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Bland substation Site, Gasconade County, Missouri. Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
, Evans, David R., -
and David J. Ives n.d. Archaeological Site 23CY20: Recommendations. Ms. on file,-
Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
'1973 Initial Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Near Reform, Callaway County, Missouri. Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columb!^.
1978 A Cultural Resourcss Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Comprny 315KV Transmission Line Right-01-Way,
.Callaway and Montgomery Counties, Missouri Ms. on file, Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
1979a 23CY20 The Preservation Plan For An Archaeoloi l cal Site.
Archaeological Survey of Missouri, Columbia.
. +
1979b A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Union Electric Company 345KV Transmission Line Right-Of-Way, 51
fo l
., . l l
Gasconade and Osage Counties, Missouri. Ms. on file, )
Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
Federal Reo ster l 1986 Rules and Regulations 51F.R.31115.
~
Goodyear, Albert C.
1 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the i Southeastern United States. American Anticulty 47(2):382-395.
King, Tuomas F.-, Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg 1977 Anthropology on Historic Preservation, Caring for Culture's Clutter. Academic Press, New York.
McNerney, Michael J.
1978 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Shavnee National Forest. Cultural Resources Management Studies #27.
Fischer-Stein Associates, carbondale, Illinois.
1982 Cultural Resources Assesnment of Proposed Borrow Pit Nos.
7 and 8, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Site. Ms. on file, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbendale, 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. Gail White, and Kurt R. Moore 1983 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment on Residual Lands at Union Electric Company's Nuclear Power Plant, Callaway County, Missouri. Cultural Eesources Management Report #52. American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
Schiffer, Michael P and John H. House (assemblers) 1975 "? t tache River Archaeological Project: An Experiment-in tortract Archaeology.. Research Series #8. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Jonesboro.
Traver, Jerome D.
1985 Phase II Cultural Resource Testing and Assessment of Sites 23CY-20, 23CY-352 and 23CY-359 at Union Electric Ccupany's Ca'lavay Nuclear Power Plant, Callaway County, Missouri. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 96, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois.
Tucker, Patrick M., and Edvard M. Morin 1981a A Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of the Sanitary Landfill Area, Callaway Nuclear Power Plant 52
1 L 1 <, + .-
Site, Callavay County, Missouri. Cultural Resources 1 Managment Report No. 50, American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, Illinois.
1981b A Cultural Resources Surjev aqd_ Assessment of the Emergency Operational-Facility, Callava Nuclear Power Plant Site, Callaway County, Missouri Cultural Resources Management Report No. 51, American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale,-Illinois, Weston, Donald E., and Michael S. Weichman (editors) 1987 Master Plan for Archaeological _gesource Protection in Missouri. Prepared for Division of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, under.the direction of Historic Kansas City Found.ition, by Archaeological Associates and Environmental Syctems Analysis-.
b E -J_ "
4 i
53
'i Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office -
? "
k Lj i P.O. Box 5400
% A Albuquerque New Mexico 87115 APR17If&
1 Mr. John J. Surmeier Operations Branch Chief Division of Low Level Waste Management & Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Materials Cafety and Safegmards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stor 5E-4 OWFN Washington,DC 20555
Dear Mr. Surmeier:
I was pleased that you could take time from your schedule to attend the the States and Tribes meeting. It was an opponunity for those of us who are involved in a day to day basis to listen and understand the concerns expressed with respect to the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. I hope that you understand that we in the UMTRA Project Office are there to share our ideas and to gain valuable input from your knowledge and perspective. I trust the meeting was a useful experience and provided you with not only a status of the Project, but an indication of our thoughts for the future.
Enclosed foryou infomation is a contact list of those who attended the meeting.
I hope you gained a great deal from the meeting and the discussions. We, here at the UMTRA
. I5 ject Office, feel the meeting was very successful. Please feel free to contact me cr any of the UMTRA staff should you have any questions or thoughts about the UMTRA Program.
Sincerely, nfr)
% /
- Albert R. Chernof Project Manager.
Uranium MillTailing.; Remedial Action Project Office Enclosure 4
- r' y n n . . ni C'lu u. J /y
,U ,, ,,
9204240283 920417 F'DR ^ )
WASTE-
- List of Attendees 00E/ States / Tribes UMTRA Project Coordination Meeting San Antonio, Texas March 10-12, 1992 game _ _ _ _
Address & lip Code Phone No.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs 602-379-6781 Phoenix Area Lf fice P.O. Box 10 Phoenix, AZ 85001 Roseria Duwyenie Bureau of. Indian Affairs 602-871-5151 Navajo Area Office P.O. Box 1060 Gallup. NM 87305 Lena Yazzie Bureau of Indian Affairs 602-871-5151 Navajo Area Office P.O. Box 1060 Window Rock, AZ 86305 CHEM-NUCLEAR GE0 TECH Charles Jones P.O. Box 14000 303-242-8621 Grand Junction, CO 81503 Michael Madson P.O. Box 14000 303-242-8621 Grand Junction, CO 81503 Vincent Tonc- P.O. Box 14000 303-242-8621 Grand Junction, CO 81503 l HOPI TRIBE
- Willie Honani P.O. Box 12; 602-734-2441 l sjkotsmovi, AZ 86045 l-l- Gary LaRance P.O. Box 123 602-734-2441 Kykotsmovi, AZ 86C45 I
Diana Lucero P.O. Box 123 602-734-2441-i Kykotsmovi, AZ 86045 p
t.1"in Norton P.O. Box 123 602-734-2441 Kykotsmovi, AZ 86045 i
l l-. _ -
List of Attendees 1992 DOE / States / Tribes UMTRA Project Coordination Meeting r March 10-12, 1992 Hame Address & Zio Code P' hone No.
NAVAJO NATION Raymond Charley Division of Resources 602-871-659?
P.O. Box 308 Window Rock, AZ 86515 Byron Huskon Division of Resources 602-871-6592 P.O. Box 308 Window Rock, AZ 86515 IDAHO Clyde Cody Division of Environmental Quality (208) 334-0556 Department of Healtn & Welf are 1410 N..Hilton Boise, ID 83720 ,
STATE OF COLORADO Jeffrey Deckler Colorado Department of Health 303-331-4808 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Howard Roitman Colorado Department of-Health 303-331-4517 4210 East Ilth Avenue Denver, CO 80220 STATE OF IDAHO Lance Nielsen Idaho Div. of Env. Quality 208-334-5879 1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 83706 STATE OF NEW MEXICO Gini Nelson Environment Department 505-827-2854 525 Camino de los Marquez P.O. Box 2611C Santa Fe, NM 87502
List of Attendees 1992 DOE / States / Tribes UMTRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 Sise Address & Zip Code Phone No.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO (Con't)
John Farker Favironment Department 505-827-2922 5?; Camino de Los Marquez P 0. Box 26110 Santa Fe, NM 87592 STATE OF OREGON Felix Miera HC64, Box 60 503-947-3334 Laneview, OR STATE OF TEXAS Gary Gartzke Texas Department of Health 512-835-7000 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78755-3189 Ruth E. McBurney Texas Department of Health 512-835-7000 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 REMEDIA1. ACTION CONTRACTOR Riley Barlow MK-Ferguson Company 505-845-5868 2309 Renard Place SF Albuquerque, NM 87119 Robert Lawrence MK-Ferguson Company 505-845-5868 2309 Renard Place SE Albuquergae, NM 87119 Don Sanders MK-Environmental Services 415-442-7580 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Bill Zebick MK-Ferguson Company 505-845-5868 2309 Renard Place SE Albuquerque, NM 87119
List of Attendees 1992 00E/ States / Tribes UMIRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 Name Address & Zip _ Code P_ hone No.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTOR Denise Bierley - Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4015 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Oeanna Chavez Jacobs Engineering Group : 1c. 505-845-4011 5301 Central Ne. , NE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Jim Gibb Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-5704 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Jerry Holderness Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4034 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108
' Jack Hoopes Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4015 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 170u Albuquerque, NM 87108 Mike Kearney Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4015 5301 Central Ave., kE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Ned Larson Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4030 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1700 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Roger Nelson Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 505-845-4011 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1700 Albuquer que, NM 87108
List of Attendees 1992 00E/ States / Tribes UMTRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 Hame Addrest _k_ lip Code Phone No.
U.S. DEPARTHENT OF ENERGY Sharon Arp U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5668 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Frank Bosiljevac U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5638 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Al Chernoff U.S. Department of Energy 505 845-6134 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Chuck Cormier U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5049 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 A W Jerque, NM 87108 Charlene Esparza-Baca U.S. Department of Energy 505-815-5664 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 17E0 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Loretta Fahy U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5655 bdTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Jake Gatrell U.S. Department of Energy 301-903-7221 EM-451/Trevion II 12800 Middlebrook Road Room 329 6ermantown, MD 28874
_ . - - . - . - -. . . . _ - _ - - - - , -~ .- . --
List of Attendees 1992 DOE / States / Tribes UMTRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 Ea_me Address LZip Code Phone No u U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Con't)
Sally Gonzalez U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-6202 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Paula Green U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-6134 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 5400 Jane Griego U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-6450 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Steve Hamp U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5640 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave. , NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 David Jackson U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5699 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Keith Landolt U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5169 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Don Leske U.S. Department of Energy 303-326-6008 Grand Junction Projects Office l ?.0. Box 14000 Grand Junction, CO 81502 i
Ralph Lit tner U.S. Department of Energy 301-353-8180
! Office of Env. Restoration l EM-45/Trevion II l Washington, DC 20585 1
i l
l L
- l l
list of Attendees 1992 DOE / States / Tribes VMTRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 83me Address & Zip Code Phone : 7.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Con't)
Paul Mann U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5637 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Dave Mathes U.S. Department of Energy 301-903-7222 Off-Site Program Division EM-451/Trevion 11 12800 Middlebrook Road Room 329 Germantown, MD 23874 Don Metzler U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-5657 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Jose Mora U.S. Department of Enerry 505-845-5169 Albuquerque Operations Office P0 Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Corville Nohava U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-6450 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87165-5400 David Shafer .U.S. Department of Energy 301-903-7222 Off-Site Program Division EM-451/Trevion Il 12800 Middleorook Road Room 329 Germantown,!?O 7887t Betsy Shaw U.S. Department of Eneegy 505-845-4309 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Diana Sinclair U.S. Department of Energy 505-845-4315 Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
List of Attendees 1992 DOE / States / Tribes VMTRA Project Coordination Meeting March 10-12, 1992 Name Address & Zir Code _ _ _ _
Phone No.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Con't)
Clint Smythe U.S. Depar,tment of Energy 505-845-5659 UMTRA Project Office 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 1720 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Michael Tucker U.S. Department of Energy 303-248-6001 Grand Junction Projects Office P.O. Box 2567 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Joe Virgona U.S. Department of Energy 303-248-6006 Grand Junction Projects Office P.O. Box 14000 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Pat Whitfield U.S. Department of Energy 301-896-6331 Environmental Restoration Division EM-40 1000 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20585 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Dan Gillen U.S. Nuc. ear Regulatory Comm. 301-504-2517 MS 5-E-2
- One White Flint North Washington, DC 20555 Ray Gonzales U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 303-236-2805 Uranium Rtrovery Field Office P.O. Box i;325 Denver, CO 80225 Ed Hawkins U.S. Nuclear Regulato,y Comm. 303-236-2805 Uranium Recovery Field Office
- P.O. Box 25325
' Denver, CO 80225 John Surmeier U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 301-504-3439 MS 5-E-2 One White Flint North Washington, DC 20555
.