15_ExhibitGMoPhaseIGuide.pdf

State Historic Preservation Office

GUIDELINES FOR PHASE I

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS

AND REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

Please note that the following “Guidelines for Phase I Archaeological Surveys / Reports in Missouri” are just that, guidelines. They are designed to provide baseline procedures for field methodology and budgeting so that adequate information can be provided to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff for their review and comment on a project.

We fully expect that “field decisions” will need to be made to allow for individual situations. We will accept reports that vary from the following guidelines so long as an adequate justification is provided as to why the variations in methodology were made. For example a project corridor crosses several small drainages with a high likelihood for archaeological sites and then crosses into a large area of uplands with less likelihood for archaeological sites, it would be appropriate to widen out the shovel probe interval in the upland areas. Or, areas with slopes, wetlands, or other aspects that would make previous habitation unlikely were not surveyed and are described in the report as such. Use professional judgement when considering methodology variations and expect to provide the justification in the report.

To avoid having requests for clarification or additional information, keep in mind that this is likely the only information on the project the SHPO reviewer has and they were not involved during the fieldwork, analysis and write-up of the project. We recommend that prior to submission, if possible, you pass the report by a cold reader (a person familiar with the following procedure, who was not involved in the fieldwork, analysis and write-up).

In addition, please bear in mind that these are guidelines for archaeological surveys. Do not confuse the project footprint and the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an archaeological project with the footprint and the APE for a project that also includes an architectural component (i.e. cell tower) when reading and dealing with the standing structures and photographs section.

Thank you, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

Archaeological Review Staff

Survey Procedures

A. Pedestrian survey of previously plowed / disturbed and high surface visibility areas:

Pedestrian survey of project areas is the most archaeologically thorough and cost effective technique presently available. Pedestrian survey can be employed in areas with good surface visibility. Visibility must equal 25 percent or greater of the ground surface area to use pedestrian survey techniques. The appropriate transect interval is 5 meters.

The exception to this is areas that have never been plowed or otherwise disturbed in the past because it is unlikely that artifacts would be found on the surface regardless of surface visibility (see Systematic shovel testing).

B. Systematic shovel testing of low surface visibility and previously undisturbed / unplowed areas:

In areas that have not been previously plowed, or areas with less than 25 percent surface visibility, systematic shovel testing should be employed. The appropriate transect interval is 15 meters. Such shovel testing involves the excavation of holes at least 25cm in diameter down to archaeologically sterile soil (usually the B-horizon) if possible. If it is not possible to get to archaeological sterile soil using the standard method being employed then every third test hole should be augured to a sufficient depth. The excavated material from each shovel probe should be screened through a minimum of ½ inch mesh.

Where cultural materials are encountered the grid interval should close to 5 meters to more accurately delineate the actual site boundaries (i.e. do not “Swiss cheese” the entire site, just locate an accurate boundary).

C. Deep testing:

When dealing with areas that potentially contain deeply buried cultural remains it will be necessary to utilize techniques that can investigate deep strata. Usually such techniques include hand or mechanical systematic deep coring, or deep trenches using heavy equipment (typically a backhoe).

Examples of geomorphic features requiring such testing are floodplains, alluvial fans, and occasionally some uplands and terraces where post-Pleistocene loess deposition has occurred.

D. Photographic Requirements for Structures:

Photographs must be provided for all structures located within the project area and the Area of Potential Effect (APE). This includes all structures regardless of the condition. For example, a 40-acre subdivision development project that contains 3 former farmsteads on the property will require photographs of all structures.

Be sure to provide a statement regarding eligibility and effect in the “Recommendations” portion of the report for each structure or district (see example – Section C Recommendations below).

E. Collection Strategy and Curation:

At a minimum, samples of artifacts observed during Phase I survey should be collected and curated.

If artifact collection is not feasible due to lack of landowner permission, then field photographs of diagnostic artifacts (scale included) and a sample of non-diagnostic artifacts should be included in the report along with a signed statement from the landowner indicating the desire to retain the artifacts.

Until the development of a state curation facility is completed, artifacts should be curated either with the consulting firm or with the Museum Support Center at the University of Missouri.

Survey Report

At the completion of the field survey a report of the archaeological findings and recommendations must be sent to the SHPO for evaluation. Please keep in mind, that when submitting reports to the SHPO for review, all project reports submitted will be considered final and therefore should be thorough and complete. Draft reports will be reviewed only if agreed upon during consultation prior to project initiation.

For most projects we recommend that the Section 106 Survey Memo be completed for the report. When determining if the Survey Memo or a full text report is appropriate, bear in mind that other researchers (including yourselves) will be using the report in future and it will need to convey the information regarding the survey and sites located clearly.

If you are submitting a full text report, a Section 106 Survey Memo must be completed and included.

Staff uses the Section 106 Survey Memo to compile a bibliographic index of archaeological investigations throughout the state. And in this situation it should be noted that maps and attachments will not be required (as they are already in the report) and many of the fields on the form, such as “Cultural Material Recovered” will be completed as “please see the following report”.

To assist in this evaluation and to avoid delays in processing, the full text reports should contain, at a minimum, a discussion of the following topics:

A. Background Information:

1. Full, detailed description of project for which the survey was conducted. This must include the name of the applicable federal agency.

2. Previous archaeological research within a minimum of one mile from the maximum extent of the archaeological Area of Potential Effects (which includes areas such as construction limits and access roads) for the project area. This must be based on examination of published and unpublished literature at the Cultural Resource Inventory in Jefferson City, Missouri and other regional and local repositories as appropriate.

This must include, but not be limited to the following: the site files, CRM reports, Determinations of Eligibility, historic architectural surveys, etc. A thorough examination of historical documents to ascertain presence and extent of historical occupation/land use of project area should also be included. At a minimum, copies of relevant plat maps and atlases that document historic habitation with a discussion of length of occupation and use must be included.

These topics need to be addressed in the report of investigations in addition to the ASM site file check.

3. Delineation of important regional research questions based on cultural history and past investigations. This should include, but not be limited to, referencing The Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri (1987).

4. Thorough discussion and description of present and past environment and the implications for interpreting the local archaeological record should be included. Such topics as topography, soils, and discussion of relevant periods of prehistory should also be included. Discuss only the periods of prehistory and history that are relevant to the current project based on the background research.

B. Survey Information:

1. Complete description of project area including acreage, ground cover, topography, and any other factors that are important to interpreting the survey results.

2. Relevant portion of the 7.5 minute topographic map delineating the project area.

3. Survey techniques thoroughly described and documentation of consultation for alternative procedures.

4. Sketch maps should be included with each report. While maps do not have to be to scale and can be hand drawn, they must be legible and include the following information:

• Land use / ground cover (including percentage surface visibility).

• Survey limitations (a description and justification for any areas that could not be surveyed. For example: 0.2 acres of pasture could not be surveyed because landowner could not be contacted to turn off electric fence and remove livestock.) These areas should be clearly labeled on Figure 2, the sketch map.

• Survey techniques employed in relation to individual areas of land use / ground cover (i.e.

pedestrian survey or shovel probes)

• Location of testing procedures (i.e. backhoe trenches, test units, etc.) and site limits (if applicable).

5. Any additional photographs, maps, or other relevant materials that would contribute to the understanding of the project.

C. Recommendations:

This section must include the consultant’s recommendations determined by consulting the appropriate National Register Bulletin(s) available from the National Park Service. At a minimum, National Register Bulletin 15 - “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” must be employed to make determinations of eligibility and recommendations.

Other bulletins are available for specific topics and should be consulted and used appropriately for topics such as:

cemeteries* shipwrecks* historic archaeological sites historic landscapes rural historic landscapes traditional cultural properties

* Missouri state laws also protect these resources. Refer to http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ for the revised Missouri Statutes concerning protection of these resources.

Recommendations in the report must include one of the following statements with regard to the project as a whole in addition to determinations of eligibility for the individual sites / structures:

a) No Historic Properties Located.

For projects that failed to locate historic properties

b) No National Register Eligible Historic Properties Located.

Historic properties were located; however they do not meet the eligibility standards for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

c) National Register Eligible Historic Properties Located.

Historic properties were located which meet the eligibility standards for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

d) Historic Properties May Meet Requirements For National Register Listing; Phase II Testing Is Recommended

Historic properties were located which may meet the eligibility standards for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, not enough information was collected during the Phase I.

Phase II Testing is therefore needed to make the eligibility determination.

For example: Survey located twelve archaeological sites, 23XX001 through 23XX012. Sites 23XX001, 23XX002, and 23XX003 are small, low-density prehistoric scatters that do not appear to meet requirements for National Register Eligibility (see site form for details). Sites 23XX004 – 23XX011 are small historic period scatters which do not appear to meet requirements for National Register eligibility. One site, 23XX012 appears to be eligible. Mid-range dates for the ceramics collected suggest a mid-1800s occupation, but the site terminus post quem and terminus ante quem are 1874 and 1895 respectively, as based on an indicated structure in historic atlases. It therefore appears that the ceramics may have been curated. The site may meet requirements for National Register Eligibility, and avoidance or Phase II testing is recommended for this resource.

In addition, the survey located 4 buildings over 50 years old. Buildings A, B, and C (see photograph log) have had several recent additions and had vinyl siding added and do not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Building D (see photograph log), is a Greek Revival I - house that appears to be eligible under Criterion C for Architecture. As planned, the proposed project will have no adverse effect on this historic property because it will have no direct impact to the physical structure of the building.

“Potentially Eligible" This term is not acceptable. Resources will be considered eligible until proven otherwise. Recommendations of eligibility should clearly state that the site/structure “is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places” or the site/structure “is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places”.

D. Site Information (if present):

1. A full description of the site location, material recovered (including curation facility), and a preliminary interpretation of its place in the local culture history must be included.

2. A completed site form with topographic map and sketch map must be submitted to the SHPO for each site. Site forms should be included only in the SHPO copy of the reports. These site forms are not to be included in any reports that may be disseminated to the general public.

Reports must include the citation Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 on the confidentiality of site location information.

3. Recommendations for each site are required. These will consist of either: “the site is not eligible”, “further testing will be required”, or mitigation alternatives for the site. Any suggestions concerning site disposition should be stated in terms of their relationships to relevant regional research questions and The Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri (1987).

E. Archaeological Contractor's Vita:

All contract archaeologists working in Missouri must either have a current vita on file with the SHPO or submit one with each report.

F. Project Correspondence:

Project correspondence must be included as an appendix. This should include such letters as the initial SHPO survey request, and any other relevant correspondence. Please do not include budget information.