Laserfiche WebLink
In the June 2011 revisit, Metcalf divided the site into sub -segments A through F based <br />on the varying conditions/upgrades of the road (see Jennings and Swason 2011 for further <br />information). Sub -sections A through C are the only sections of the road within the current <br />project boundary and were described as: <br />...sub -segment C is a two -track that is currently heavily used by <br />vehicles for recreational hunting. In the south half of section 33, the historic <br />road appears to follow a drainage cut upslope (sub -segment B) to where the <br />modern and historic roads meet up again. Sub -segment B was not ground- <br />truthed as vegetation was too thick. Modern County Road 33 crosses the <br />historic road near the latter's southern terminus at the crest of the Williams's <br />Fork Mountain divide in section 4, TSN, R90W. Sub -segment A is a faint, <br />abandoned two -track that runs through a grassy meadow. It appears that the <br />southern terminus of sub -segment A is the same as the south end of the road <br />as shown on the 1916 GLO for TSN, R90W. The modern road continues <br />south into the Williams Fork River Valley. <br />The present project found no indications of a road in the grassy meadow of previously <br />recorded sub -segment A, or at the south end or middle portions of sub -segment B. Lack of <br />findings are attributed to the dense serviceberry and Gamble oak. The valley floor where the <br />northern portion of sub -segment B and the southern portion of sub -segment C reputedly lie is <br />also covered with dense grass and, although fresh OHV tracks were observed, no indications <br />of the former road could be seen. <br />The unnamed road appears on the 1913 and 1916 General Land Office survey maps. <br />Numerous land patents were granted within the project area between 1911 and 1940, the <br />majority of which were filed in the early 1920s, suggesting that the road was used by settlers <br />before it fell into abandonment. Archival research did not locate any additional information <br />pertaining to the site that previous recordings have not relayed. <br />Evaluation and Management Recommendations <br />In terms of the seven aspects of integrity: Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, <br />Association, Setting, and Location, the following can be stated about the road segment: The <br />site was chosen and designed for efficiency and ease of use for transportation. The <br />surrounding environment is representative of the setting during the site's period of <br />significance. Since sections of the road are no longer visible or have experienced disturbance <br />from modern use, it is void of materials, workmanship, and feeling. The site is lacking <br />integrity in association, as it could not be connected to specific historic events and/or people. <br />The entire extent of the resource remains unknown and has not been subject to an <br />intensive cultural resources survey; thus, the entire resource is field evaluated as needs data <br />until surveyed in full. In 2011 this portion of the site was field evaluated as not eligible for <br />listing on the NRHP. The newly revisited segment of the road still fails to meet Criteria A <br />19 <br />