Laserfiche WebLink
GCC Rio Grande, Inc., Cultural Survey <br />significant in our past; (c) its engineering, artistic, or architectural values; or (d) its information <br />potential in history or prehistory. <br />' Prehistoric resources are most often evaluated under Criterion d, for their potential to yield <br />information important in prehistory. Significant information potential in a prehistoric site <br />requires that the site contain intact cultural deposits or discrete activity areas that can be securely <br />' associated with a temporal period or discrete cultural group. The potential for intact deposits or <br />cultural/temporal associations may be inferred from surface evidence of cultural features or <br />undisturbed Holocene deposits, and the presence of temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts. <br />' Historic resources may be evaluated under any of the Criteria. However, in the absence of <br />structural features or documented association with significant historic events or the important <br />contributions of persons significant in history, historical resources more than 50 years old are <br />evaluated under essentially the same criteria as prehistoric resources. <br />URS (Mutaw 2002) projected the potential for finding cultural resources in the remaining project <br />' area. Historic resources were considered to be fully recorded in the project area and no additional <br />historic resources were anticipated. The prehistoric resources were predicted to be limited due to <br />the distance from the project area to, sources of water. The upland portion of the project area was <br />' probably used to varying degrees for plant procurement and hunting. Two zones were described. <br />The first zone was the upland area and St. Charles River floodplain, which were unlikely to have <br />prehistoric sites. The second zone that has a potential for prehistoric sites is the terraces along the <br />' St. Charles River and exposures of the gravelly loam of Pleistocene age. These projections will <br />be discussed in the Evaluation and Recommendations section of this report. <br />' FIELD METHODS <br />' The plant site, quarry area (up to the five-year plan), railroad spur, and borrow area were <br />inventoried by pedestrian survey for the presence of cultural resources. The quarry and plant site <br />area were surveyed as one large block area that was walked by three archaeologists in parallel <br />' transects oriented north-south and spaced 20 in apart. The borrow area was. walked by a single <br />archaeologist in zigzag transects. The railroad spur was walked by two archaeologists in <br />transects parallel to the centerline and spaced 20 in apart. The ground visibility was excellent <br />' with visibility at or above 80 percent. Field conditions were good for the discovery of cultural <br />resources and the project area did not contain any extensive areas of in situ Holocene deposits <br />that might contain buried cultural resources. If a site was discovered the location was plotted on <br />' a USGS topographic map, a sketch map was prepared, appropriate OAHP forms completed, <br />photographs taken, and a PVC pipe with metal identifier tag placed as a site datum. <br />' RESULTS <br />The intensive inventory of the project area resulted in visitation of three previously recorded <br />' historic properties, the recording of two new prehistoric isolates, and the recording of two new <br />historic linear sites. In addition a previously undocumented historic site was identified and <br />recorded outside the project area. The Donnelly floodwater ditch, 5PE1915.2, as recorded by <br />URS (Mutaw 2002), included the segments of this ditch in the present survey area. The recording <br /> <br />1180-Red Rock Class III CR Inventory(Apr.17.02) .7 <br />