This page is intentionally left blank. Best Management Practices of Archaeological Study Methods State Job No.: 14775(0) FINAL REPORT
Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
by
University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Anthropology Cincinnati, OH
December 2002
Research Team: Anastasios M. Ioannides and Alan P. Sullivan (co-PIs) Pavan Tallapragada, Sharat Gollamudi, and Patrick M. Uphus (Research Assistants) DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 ACTIVITIES OF NEIGHBORING STATE AGENCIES 1 FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.1 General Introduction 1
1.2 State of Illinois 1
1.2.1 Illinois Transportation Archaeological 2
Research Program (ITARP)
1.2.2 Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) 5
1.2.3 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) 6
1.2.4 National Trust for Historic Protection (NTHP) 7
1.2.5 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Illinois 7
Organizations
1.2.6 Interview (1 of 2): ITARP 7
1.2.7 Interview (2 of 2): CERL 14
1.3 State of Indiana 23
1.3.1 Department of Transportation Indiana (INDOT) - 23
Environment, Planning and Engineering Division -
Environmental Assessment Section
v 1.3.2 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - Indiana 26
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
1.3.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Indiana 27
Organizations
1.3.4 Interview (1 of 2): DNR 27
1.3.5 Interview (2 of 2): INDOT 30
1.4 State of Kentucky 32
1.4.1 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) 33
1.4.2 The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC) or State Historic 36
Preservation Office (SHPO)
1.4.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Kentucky 36
Organizations
1.5 State of West Virginia 37
1.5.1 West Virginia Department of Transportation - 37
Division of Highways-Engineering Division - Environmental
Services Section-Archaeology Unit
1.5.2 West Virginia Division of Culture and History - 41
State Historic Preservation Office
1.5.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in 41
West Virginia Organizations
2 A PREDICTIVE MODEL OF PRECONTACT 46
vi ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATION FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 46
EXCERPT 2.1 46
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 46 by Allyson Brooks, G. Joseph Hudak, Guy E. Gibbon, and Elizabeth Hobbs
2.1.1 Introduction 46
2.1.2 Purpose and Scope of Project 48
2.1.3 Concepts 49
2.1.4 Methodology 51
2.1.5 Products 55
2.1.6 Results 56
2.1.7 References 57
EXCERPT 2.2 60
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60 By G. Joseph Hudak, Allyson Brooks, Curtis M. Hudak, Elizabeth Hobbs, Edwin R. Hajic, and Craig M. Johnson
2.2.1 Introduction 60
2.2.2 MN/Model Overview 61
vii 2.2.3 Archaeological Resource Management 63
2.2.4 Change of Process Approach 64
2.2.5 MN/Model Enhancements 66
2.2.6 Conclusion 70
2.2.7 References 73
3 ARIZONA‘S CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY 74
3.1 Introduction 74
3.2 Development of AZSITE Consortium 75
3.3 AZSITE Database 76
3.4 AZSITE Data Management and Security 78
3.5 AZSITE Database Design 79
3.5.1 Introduction 79
3.5.2 System Design 80
3.5.3 Data Entry and Maintenance 80
3.5.4 Other GIS Data 81
3.6 AZSITE Database Features Accessible to the User Public 81
3.7 AZSITE‘S Policy for Web Access and Direct Access 83
3.7.1 Web Access 83
3.7.2 Direct Access 84
3.8 Policy for Data about Archaeological and Historical Sites
viii on Tribal Lands and AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory 84
3.8.1 Policy Background 84
3.8.2 Policy Text 86
3.9 The AZSITE Database as of 05/31/2002 88
3.9.1 Data in AZSITE 89
3.9.2 Data Not Available in AZSITE and Known Problems 90
3.10 AZSITE Funding Plan 90
ix TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4: An Analysis of Phase I Surveys
4.1: Introduction ...... 92 4.2: Project and Database Variable Descriptions . . . 95 4.3: Project and Database Description . . . . 99 4.3.1: Administrative Attributes . . . . 99 4.3.2: Pre-survey Attributes . . . . . 103 4.3.3: Survey Project Attributes . . . . 104 4.3.4: Survey Design Attributes . . . . 106 4.4: Site Database Variable Description . . . . 110 4.5: Site Database Description . . . . . 114 4.5.1: Administrative Attributes . . . . 114 4.5.2: Survey Factors ...... 117 4.5.3: Site Attributes ...... 122 4.5.4: Post-discovery Attributes . . . . 125
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
5.1: Evaluative Framework ...... 126 5.2: Recommendations ...... 132 5.2.1: Pre-survey Requirements . . . . 132 5.2.2: Phase I Survey Protocols . . . . 133 5.2.3: Post-survey Protocols . . . . . 133 5.2.4: E-survey Benefits . . . . . 134
Chapter 6: Phase I Survey Data and Predictive Models
6.1: Introduction ...... 135 6.1.1: Primitivism ...... 135 6.1.2: Methodologies ...... 136 6.1.3: Objectives ...... 138 6.1.4: Unit of Analysis . . . . . 138 6.1.5: Predictor Variables . . . . . 139 6.2: Phase I Survey Data and Predictive Modeling: An Attribute Approach ...... 141
References Cited ...... 146
Appendix A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number) . . . 151
x Appendix B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number) . . . . . 159
Appendix C.1: Modeling of Sample Site Data File Information œ Landcover. 171
Appendix C.2: Modeling of Sample Site Data File Information œ Soil Units. 172
Appendix C.3: Modeling of Sample Site Data File Information œ Glacial Geology...... 173
xi LIST OF TABLES Page
1.1 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Illinois 42 1.2 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Indiana 43 1.3 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Kentucky 44 1.4 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of West Virginia 45
xii LIST OF TABLES
4.1.1: Number of Phase I surveys listed alphabetically by county. . . 100 4.1.2: Number of Phase I surveys per county by descending frequency. . 101 4.2: List of organizations that conducted Phase I surveys. . . 102 4.3: Report dates of projects...... 103 4.4: Settings of project areas...... 104 4.5: Number of previously recorded sites in survey areas. . . 104 4.6: Types of construction projects associated with survey areas. . 105 4.7: Size of project areas...... 105 4.8: Season when surveys were conducted. . . . . 106 4.9.1: Number of project reports that included survey methods.. . . 107 4.9.2: Frequency of survey method types used among projects. . . 107 4.10.1: Systematic pedestrian survey intervals. . . . . 108 4.10.2: Shovel-testing intervals...... 108 4.11: Survey crew size...... 109 4.12: Number of days surveying in the field . . . . 109 4.13.1: Number of sites listed alphabetically by county. . . . 115 4.13.2: Number of sites per county broken down by decreasing frequency. . 116 4.14: Landform types of survey areas . . . . . 117 4.15: Field conditions of survey areas...... 118 4.16.1: Number of methods used and associated number of discovered sites. 119 4.16.2: Number of sites found using one method. . . . . 119 4.16.3: Number of sites found using combinations of two methods. . . 120 4.16.4: Number of sites found using combinations of three methods. . 120 4.16.5: Number of sites found using combinations of four methods. . . 121 4.17: Number of sites found by month...... 121 4.18: Frequency of site types...... 122 4.19: Period designation of sites...... 123 4.20: Number of artifacts recovered at sites. . . . . 123 4.21: Number of lithic raw material types...... 124 4.22: Maximum site dimensions...... 124 4.23: National Register status...... 125 4.24: Frequency of sites recommended for further testing. . . . 125
5.1: Influence of Phase I Survey on ODOT planning strategies. . . 126
6.1: Data layers available for each study area. . . . . 145
xiii LIST OF FIGURES
5.1: Site types based on median number of artifacts. . . . 127 5.2: Site types based on maximum site dimensions. . . . 128 5.3: National Register eligibility based on maximum size dimentions. . 129 5.4: National Register eligibility based on total artifact range. . . 129
6.1: Distribution of 3,910 archaeological sites with SHPO-corrected UTM locations...... 143 6.2: Distribution of 13 predictive-modeling study areas. . . . 144
xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APE Areas of Potential Effect
ASM Arizona State Museum
ATMAS Automated Tool for Monitoring Archaeological Sites
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAPLTER Central Arizona-Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research
CATS Controlled Archaeological Test Site
CERL Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
CRIBB Cultural Resources Information Bulletin Board
CRIS Cultural Resources Information System
CRM Cultural Resource Management
CRRC Cultural Resources Research Center
DEA Environmental Analysis Division
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOD Department of Defense
DOH Division of Highways
DOT Department of Transportation
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
xv ESS Environmental Service Section
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
IAS Illinois Archaeological Survey
IDHPA Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation
IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
INDOT Indiana Department of Transportation
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITARP The Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program
KHC Kentucky Heritage Council
KTC Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
LAS College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
MARC Machine Readable Code
Mn/DOT Minnesota Department Of Transportation
MNA Museum of Northern Arizona
MnSAS Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Survey
NADB National Archaeological Database
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA National Environment Protection Act
xvi NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NSF National Science Foundation
NTHP National Trust for Historic Preservation
OSA Office of State Archaeologist
PBS Public Broadcasting Service
PSD Preservation Services Division
SDE Spatial Database Engine
SHA State Highway Agencies
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UIUC University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL
USGS United States Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WVDOT West Virginia Department of Transportation
XCRIS Integrated Cultural Resource Support System
xvii This page is intentionally left blank.
xviii 1 ACTIVITIES OF NEIGHBORING STATE AGENCIES FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.1 General Introduction
The preservation of historic and archaeological resources is of significant importance to society at large and to the engineering profession, in particular. This Chapter discusses the activities of the State Highway Agencies (SHA) in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia
regarding the preservation of historic structures and archaeologically important findings. First, a
general outline is provided of the various divisions in each SHA involved in such activities,
followed by details regarding collaborating state and private organizations working on related
projects. Brief information on completed or on-going projects is also made available. In
addition, a list of important persons in these organizations and other contact individuals from
whom more information can be obtained is supplied.
1.2 State of Illinois
The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
not have a specific division involved in historic resource preservation. IDOT, however, is
actively involved in research efforts in this regard in collaboration with the University of Illinois
1 at Urbana-Champaign, IL (UIUC). The Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research
Program (ITARP)
administered by the Department of Anthropology at UIUC. In addition, the Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Champaign,
IL
products helpful in archaeological research. Finally, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
(IHPA)
for Historic Preservation (NTHP) midwest.html> are also significant in their contributions to efforts for the preservation of the Illinois' historic and cultural diversity. While IHPA is a state agency, NTHP is a private non-profit organization with offices throughout the country. 1.2.1 Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program (ITARP) This program is the result of long-term cooperation between the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Under ITARP, large-scale, long-duration projects are conducted, aimed at preserving the state's important archaeological resources. Moreover, ITARP personnel are involved in the curation of massive research collections of artifacts from major historic sites in Illinois, and the provision of information to public and professional audiences through publications, exhibits and displays. Through a number of divisions, research projects are conducted, providing funding and research opportunities for students in the Department of Anthropology at UIUC and for other researchers. These divisions are as follows: (a) the Statewide Survey Division, conducting statewide cultural 2 resource inventories; (b) the Special Projects Division, carrying out special and large-scale mitigation projects; (c) the American Bottom Survey Division, performing archaeological research in the St. Louis metropolitan area; (d) the Western Illinois Survey Division, conducting research in western and central Illinois; (e) the Northern Illinois Division, performing research in the northern part of Illinois; and (f) the Program Support Division, providing administrative infrastructure support for the program, e.g., laboratory, physical anthropology, curation, cartography and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) expertise, desktop publishing and computer facilities. A brief description of recent projects undertaken by ITARP personnel is given below. Some of these activities have already been completed, whereas research is currently on-going in other cases. The East St. Louis Mound Center Considered destroyed initially due to urban and highway development, the historical significance of this site on the north side of I-55/70 was revealed by IDOT in 1989. ITARP researchers conducted large-scale research to identify, map and excavate an unknown Mississippian plaza and mound complex, uncovering many significant archaeological features. Kane Village Site This area was a large late pre-historic bluff top habitation. Initially excavated in 1963 during highway salvage for the construction of I-270 in Madison County, Illinois, it remained poorly understood and documented until more recent extensive excavations by ITARP staff. Research generated a wealth of data, including rare ethno-botanical, faunal and micro-artifactual materials. Resources unearthed demonstrated the importance of the site, and made it eligible for enrolment in the National Register of Historic Places. 3 Halliday Site and the Richland Archaeological Project A number of unusual features and rare artifacts found at this site give detailed information helpful in understanding early Mississippian upland groups during prehistoric times. Features discovered include pits, post molds, post pits and other structures. Rock and ceramic artifacts were widespread. FAP-310 Mitigation Project Located in Madison County, this IDOT project involves a 19-km highway stretch between IL Route 143 and the town of Godfrey. Many prehistoric and archaeological sites have been identified in this region, providing evidence from several cultures as well as ante-bellum information. Current excavations are expected to continue for several years. Egan Site Data from this Scott County site, situated several miles southwest of Jacksonville, trace back to the Woodland period. Material excavated includes ceramics (e.g., decorated bowl fragments), lamellar blades and a prismatic core, mica, and rims with nodes and hemiconical punctuates. Pit fills contain traces of burned nutshell and wood, which will be subjected to radiocarbon dating. A preliminary estimate of the age of the site places it around AD 300-350. Western Illinois Survey Division Projects Some of the regions where the Western Illinois Survey Division has conducted large-scale surveys are the Cabin corner site in Lima Lake Bottoms of the Mississippi river valley, the lower Illinois Valley in Schuyler County, as well as sites in the flood plains of Big Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks. 4 1.2.2 Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) Lands owned by the Department of Defense (DOD) are known to contain some of the nation's most significant cultural resources, whose management requires the development of innovative identification, evaluation and protection approaches. Investigators at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) located in Champaign, IL, are involved in cultural resource research in three thrust areas: archaeology, Native American issues, and historic structures and landscapes. Of most interest to archaeology are efforts to implement compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and to develop integrated cultural resources management plans. A risk assessment approach is pursued, concerned primarily with resources at maximum risk, from the perspectives of impact to the Army's mission or to the resource itself. Multi-dimensional inventory techniques and models are sought, blending site prediction, location and uniqueness. Tool development efforts for cultural resource management were initiated at CERL in the 1980s, first through the establishment of the Cultural Resources Information Bulletin Board (CRIBB), to facilitate the exchange of information between various military installations. Subsequently, a database management system for cultural resources was created, called the Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS). The Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) developed at CERL for the West Point Military Academy involved an archaeological predictive model employing geospatial data assembled in a Geographic Information System (GIS). From this, an integrated cultural resources decision support system was created to facilitate the use of site prediction models as management decision support tools. The Cultural Resources Research Center (CRRC) was established in the late 1980s, to promote the use of advanced research tools 5 and technologies toward a variety of cultural resource management issues. One of the most interesting aspects of cultural resource research at CERL is the Controlled Archaeological Test Site (CATS) facility. This is a one-acre test site, encompassing sub-surface features designed to simulate the phenomena and materials encountered at prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, whose precise location, depth, and dimensions are known. Included are postholes, pits, hearths, house floors, burials, and earthen embankments, as well as artifacts such as bricks, concrete blocks or metal objects. The facility can be used to calibrate or examine the performance of available instruments, to collect data that can be used to develop enhanced data imaging and data fusion systems, to document corporate capabilities and to train equipment operators. The CATS facility is available to government, academic and private sector researchers and is expected to assist the researchers and organizations in avoiding delays, reducing costs and mitigating personnel hazards, thereby improving the success of geophysical surveys. 1.2.3 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) The mission of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) is to collect, preserve, interpret and communicate the diverse heritage of Illinois and to educate the public by providing access to historic resources in the state. More specifically, its Preservation Services Division (PSD) identifies, evaluates, and protects Illinois' historic and prehistoric resources, including archaeological sites in public lands owned and managed by various municipal bodies, counties, parks districts, forest preserves and state agencies. The Division's activities involve the evaluation and mitigation of potential adverse effects on such resources stemming from public or 6 federally funded projects. 1.2.4 National Trust for Historic Protection (NTHP) The National Trust for Historic Protection (NTHP) is a private non-profit organization involved in the protection and preservation of important cultural and historic resources around the country, chartered by Congress in 1949. The Trust maintains a number of regional and field offices, including one in Chicago, IL, with jurisdiction in the Midwestern states. It offers technical assistance through consultations and field visits, as well as financial assistance through small grants to local preservationists. 1.2.5 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Illinois Organizations A list of important contact persons and their respective organizations, their positions, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are provided in Table 1.1. 1.2.6 Interview (1 of 2): ITARP Dr Thomas F. Emerson, Director of the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program (ITARP), was interviewed by Dr Anastasios M. Ioannides at the offices of ITARP in Champaign, IL on 6/7/02. The notes below highlight the issues discussed by Dr Emerson and the information he provided to Dr Ioannides. Evolution of the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program (ITARP) In the mid-1950s, the first professional organization of archaeologists in the state of Illinois was created, under the name of Illinois Archaeological Survey (IAS). This was a not- 7 for-profit private organization, which operated for several years in collaboration with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) as the archaeological arm of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). In the 1980s, however, there were some accounting and legal objections to the direct involvement of a private (albeit not-for-profit) organization in contracts between two state agencies (UIUC and IDOT). Consequently, the participation of IAS was discontinued, and UIUC remained IDOT‘s sole archaeological partner. IDOT first dealt directly with the administration of UIUC, but since the 1980s the contractual process has been channeled through the Department of Anthropology, thereby giving rise in 1994 to the current structure of the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program (ITARP). Since the 1980s, all IDOT archaeology contracts with ITARP are signed under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) at UIUC, and carry a 10% overhead rate. Thus, this partnership follows in a straight-forward manner the general directive for collaboration between state agencies. ITARP Internal Organization ITARP reports to the Office of the Chief State Archaeologist in the Environmental Section of IDOT, which has been headed by Dr John A. Walthall since 1978. ITARP‘s relationship with IDOT is similar to that between IDOT and the Illinois Geological Survey, the Illinois State Water Survey and the Illinois Natural History Survey, all of which are also affiliated with UIUC. ITARP currently includes thirty (30) non-tenure track academic professionals, thirty (30) civil servant employees and approximately sixty (60) archaeological survey crew members. Many of the crew members are students in the Department of Anthropology, although mid-west archaeology is not a significant focal area at UIUC. The 8 annual contribution of IDOT to ITARP has ranged between two (2) and four (4) million dollars. The academic professionals are affiliated with and are evaluated by the Department of Anthropology as full-time faculty, but they have been exempt from teaching duties. The facilities of ITARP at UIUC include staff offices, a library and a curation room. ITARP personnel also have access to the broader infrastructure of UIUC, notably various laboratories and the main library. ITARP also collaborates with several other universities in Illinois, notably the Center for Archaeological Investigations at the Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Quality of Archaeological Survey Data The paramount problem faced by ITARP personnel is the extremely variable quality of archaeological survey data collected for IDOT over several decades. Early on, data were recorded with reference to 15-minute quad maps, but much of this information was subsequently transferred manually to 7.5-minute quad maps, thereby introducing numerous errors. Consequently, such data are virtually useless as a research tool. Moreover, every institution had a different site form, some of which were 15 to 20 pages long, and disagreed on basic cultural designations for the sites. Since 1980, the goal of data collection has been steered away from research, and has been restricted to compliance with the state legislation concerning recording of archaeological sites. Reduction in the number of vendors involved in IDOT surveys and training of survey personnel have led to improvement in the quality of data. ITARP has served since as the corporate memory of IDOT in archaeological matters, and the experience of its own staff is often used to resolve problems arising from data errors. Predictive Modeling Predictive modeling is quite expensive but its fruits to date have all too often led to the 9 misuse of available archaeological information, or as a justification for not proceeding with additional archaeological work. In view of the proliferation of archaeological sites in Illinois, particularly in the region of the American Bottom in the southern part of the state, the general policy of IDOT is not to avoid archaeological sites during construction, but to survey and excavate them; the only exception to date in this policy has been the Cahokia Mounds. Consequently, designation of high, medium or low probability sites using a predictive model would not be useful in Illinois. In the 1970s, there had been an effort to create a predictive model, but it was fraught with problems arising from the lack of a standard methodology for data collection and recording. ITARP personnel, concerned with the quality of data collected over the years, have not pursued the development of predictive models since then, judging them to be inadequate in capturing the —idiosyncratic nature“ of each individual site. Instead, they have emphasized the need for regional expertise, gained over many years of working on Illinois sites on a state-wide basis. Less experienced archaeologists are likely to be fooled by the conditions encountered on an individual site, because the archaeology of Illinois is very regionalized. Although predictive models would be useful for someone totally unfamiliar with an area, they can also lead to a false sense of security. ITARP relies more on a system of human experts rather than on a computerized —expert system.“ Advantages of the ITARP Modus Operandi The availability of a steady source of operating and contract funds over a period of several years has been the primary reason for the fruitfulness of the collaboration between IDOT and ITARP. This ensures the continuity of the work, creates a corporate memory for IDOT and avoids the attitude of —minimum pay for minimum work“ that does not allow the findings of one 10 job to feed into another. Instead, the benefits to the archaeology of the state are maximized because seemingly unrelated finds on different sites at different times can be correlated by personnel who have been involved in such surveys over many years. This was the case recently with some Mississippian figurines first encountered by ITARP personnel in 1979, and then again intermittently over the years. Compilation of these discoveries has led to the publication this year of an American Antiquity article, demonstrating the ability of ITARP to move beyond the isolated find and the collection of random pieces of unrelated information to the synthesis of data assembled over many years at different locations. ITARP staff view cultural resources as more than a box to be checked on the appropriate form when a highway is being built; therefore, they perform preliminary state-wide surveys even in areas in which there are no current construction plans. When a project is scheduled, this approach allows IDOT to act quickly, transferring the funding needed for more detailed surveys, and enables ITARP to proceed with the timely execution of the work. Thus, there are no breaks nor delays in IDOT‘s work. The IDOT/ITARP approach is to —do it up-front as much as possible, typically 2 or 3 years ahead, and do it as quickly as possible when the project is scheduled.“ On the other hand, ITARP engages in large- scale excavation efforts, without any time constraints, utilizing in its investigations a practical approach that enhances IDOT‘s mission, rather than merely an academic, research-oriented treatment. Consequently, there is little need for predicting what exists on a site, since surveys and excavations reveal its contents more reliably. Moreover, IDOT does not need to re-route a proposed highway, since ITARP can take care of any archaeological resources along the way expeditiously and productively, in synch with the engineering activities. The similarity of views held by IDOT and ITARP staff concerning the need, extent and purpose of archaeological 11 surveys is another extremely important factor in the success of their collaboration. This ensures a relationship that is steady, long-lived, committed and secure. ITARP Methodology ITARP personnel routinely perform standard Phase I intensive pedestrian surveys at 5 m intervals with re-walks, 95% of which are over cultivated fields. Representative samples of artifacts encountered are collected, and an initial report is prepared. For example, pedestrian surveys are currently conducted intended to cover up to 80% of the corridors around the town of Danville in the middle-eastern part of the state. If a project were to scheduled some time in the future in this region, additional resources would be diverted to the completion of the exploration and the excavation of the sites encountered. Cost effectiveness is assured by combining a variety of techniques, ranging from shovel testing to backhoe and other heavy equipment work. Time effectiveness is enhanced by eliminating the need to request federal funding until Phase II activities are called for. The basis for all ITARP mapping efforts is GIS, and archaeologists are trained in this area using total stations and hand-held units. Automation and computerization of data entry and transfer in the last decade has enhanced the quality of information collected. Areal photography is used only in report preparation and data presentation. A Computer Aided Design (CAD) system is used in mapping excavated sites. The transfer of all data and other information to the publications office is accomplished electronically. Curation of Archaeological Finds ITARP has a large holding facility of its own, located at the southern part of the UIUC campus, for storing artifacts collected during its surveys and excavations. Materials collected by other universities are sometimes also housed here, as well. The crates are clearly marked and 12 catalogued allowing speedy searches and easy access to their contents. Artifacts are sometimes loaned to museums, such as The Art Institute of Chicago, for display. Humans remains are processed by ITARP staff, but are sent to the Illinois State Museum for curation, as required by law. ITARP and CERL ITARP cooperates with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in Champaign, IL on a limited basis, assisting Corps personnel in perfecting their remote sensing techniques. In recent years, excavations by ITARP have sometimes provided ground-truth verification for the geophysical and predictive modeling tools used by CERL. ITARP personnel would employ any new techniques developed, provided they can be proven reliable and cost effective. Dissemination of Information The culmination of any successful archaeological endeavor is the publication of its results. The degree to which an institution is fruitful is assessed by the number and quality of its publications. ITARP publishes several series of reports, including site reports, which document each of its activities. About 300 to 500 copies are made every time, and these are disseminated to state and private institutions and individuals. Back issues can be borrowed from ITARP, IDOT or the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA). Data collected by ITARP are transmitted to IDOT, where the data base is updated and distributed monthly on a CD-ROM. Other ITARP Activities The involvement of ITARP in activities funded by other agencies is limited to less than 5% of its budget. At the request of IDOT, ITARP personnel will collaborate with private 13 contractors and other agencies, particularly in cases where discrepancies and other problems are encountered in the reports of such entities. ITARP staff has recently received a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for their study of the aforementioned Mississippian figurines, which adds prestige and recognition to the program. All ITARP activities support the mission of IDOT and are beneficial to Illinois archaeology. 1.2.7 Interview (2 of 2): CERL Dr Michael Hargrave, archaeologist in the Land and Heritage Conservation Branch of the US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in Champaign, IL, was interviewed by Dr Anastasios M. Ioannides on 6/5/02. Joining the conversation was Mr Tad Britt, another CERL archaeologist, and Ms Suzanne K. Loechl, CERL landscape architect. The notes below highlight the issues discussed by Dr Hargrave, Mr Britt and Ms Loechl and the information they provided to Dr Ioannides. Organizational Information CERL is organized into a number of Technical Domains, including that for Military Lands, headed by Dr William Severinghaus, Technical Director. One of the branches in this Technical Domain is the Land and Heritage Conservation Branch under Dr Lucy Whalley, Chief. The web site at personnel, research and other activities, projects and tools at CERL. CERL Archaeology Mission Most of the large military installations have active training programs, which invariably have a significant impact on the cultural resources present in their land areas. Installations like 14 Forts Riley, KS, Irwin, CA, Leonard Wood, MO, and Bragg, NC, have professional archaeologists on staff, who conduct the archaeological tasks required. The mission of CERL as a research laboratory is to identify new methods and business practices, which will help the managers and archaeologists of military installations to accomplish their compliance work faster, better and cheaper. Because nowadays the emphasis is on cost reductions, CERL personnel strive to improve the reliability of the management tools developed so that their use will be more effective. Research activities at CERL aim at creating products in each of the three conventional phases of archaeological investigations, namely, Phase I: Site survey and identification of resources; Phase II: Resource testing and evaluation, and assessment of suitability for inclusion in the National Register; and, Phase III: Mitigation of adverse effects on the site due to military training or construction activities. For example, predictive modeling is useful primarily during Phase I investigations, whereas geophysical exploration is often employed as part of a Phase II testing program, as discussed in subsequent sections. With regard to improving business practices, i.e., enhancing the way that military managers spend their money, CERL researchers are developing an —Automated Tool for Monitoring Archaeological Sites“ (ATMAS). Site monitoring is often neglected by archaeologists, yet it is an important aspect of site management engaged in the conventional activities of the aforementioned three phases. The significance of the tools developed at CERL is increased in light of revisions in legislation dealing with the management of Native American lands and the preservation of ancestral graves. Such resources are very vulnerable to damage from heavy equipment and tanks, but also from isolated digging of fox-holes and fighting positions, that have the potential of spawning major public relations problems. CERL is contributing to the efforts of the Army to educate soldiers in this respect, 15 and seeks to provide necessary information to the planners and training personnel so adverse effects can be minimized. Geophysical Investigations at CERL The main attractive characteristics of geophysical techniques include: (i) They are not invasive and do not disturb the existing resources, such as American Indian ancestral homes; (ii) they are much more cost and time effective, since they can quickly result in a fairly detailed map of the site; and (iii) they can be more reliable in revealing underground resources than conventional procedures used during Phase II investigations, e.g., scraping and digging. Consequently, such techniques can permit better targeting of excavations in selected areas, and reduce the amount of archaeological material requiring costly curation in perpetuity. Native Americans are often hesitant to allow archaeologists to dig on their sites. In any case, isolated 1x1 or 2x2 m pits can often miss significant buried features, whereas the typical 20x20 m geophysical survey areas have a much higher probability of encountering subsurface features, like pits, hearths, house foundations or even burials. Whereas human labor involved in digging is becoming increasing more expensive without necessarily becoming more effective, geophysical equipment and the computers with which it is coupled have been becoming less expensive and significantly improved in performance. The significant cost savings reaped by geophysical techniques can only be expected to become greater in the near future. CERL investigators are primarily involved in the application of two different pieces of geophysical equipment. The first is the gradiometer, which relies on measurements of the gradient in the intensity of the local magnetic field, whereas the other is an electrical resistivity device. The gradiometer costs about $20,000 and its use involves a definite learning curve 16 spanning about six months, sinceœlike a surveyor‘s transitœit needs to be adjusted, and aligned with the local magnetic field. A more portable version of the instrument is also available, and the user needs to hold it so that it is perpendicular to the ground. The gradiometer measures the differences in the magnetic field between its two sensors, located 0.5 m apart. In the case of the second instrument used by CERL archaeologists, the electrical resistivity device, one of the probes is inserted into the ground where it emits a small electrical current; a second probe, also inserted in the ground, measures the resistance to the passage of current. Archaeological features, such as buried pits, house or hut foundations, will be reflected as localized anomalies in the maps produced by these devices. In one specific application of these techniques, CERL staff believed that they could identify 60% of the houses in the survey area, usually located just beneath the disturbed plough zone of about 20 cm. At another site, located about 20 km from the well-known Cahokia Mounds, CERL archaeologists collaborated with personnel from the University of Illinois (ITARP), who provided ground-truth data by digging for the geophysical data gathered. An electrical resistivity survey at Fort Riley, revealed the outline of the buried remnants of an army city complex existing in 1917, over a 400x400 m area. The cost was about $50,000, but it is estimated that to obtain the same level of detail using excavation would have been much more expensive. Geophysical techniques are much more widely used in Europe and the Mediterranean than in the United States, primarily because of the presence of higher density materials, such as masonry and metal on Roman or Greek sites. As technology improves and the resolution capabilities of geophysical equipment are enhanced, it is expected that geophysical applications in North American archaeology will also increase. Meanwhile, geophysical 17 exploration costs are decreasing, especially if care is taken to match the tool with the site, since not all sites are equally suited for these methods. For example, electrical resistance is very sensitive to moisture conditions: if the ground is completely saturated or bone dry, the resistivity equipment will not be effective. Some 16,000 data points can be stored on the site, allowing field decisions to be made, and later downloaded to a laptop computer for analysis, allowing the production of a preliminary map within thirty minutes. Other geophysical techniques considered by CERL investigators include airborne applications, notably a hand-held thermal camera, which can measure differences in thermal emissions to a tenth of a degree centigrade. Buried features tend to emit heat differently than the surrounding soil and appear as a spot on the ground surface. The camera costs $15,000 but if proven reliable it can be very cost effective, since it can cover large areas and multiple sites in a single flight, for which the normal charge is $1800 per day. The —Automated Tool for Monitoring Archaeological Sites“ (ATMAS) This tool makes use of existing information in order to prioritize a number of sites, ranking them in order of descending probability of including archaeological resources. This allows the formulation of time schedule, according to which each site will be visited once a year for about an hour per visit, in order to assess the extent of the impact of military and construction operations in the preceding year. Such a tool has been developed for Forts Riley, KS and Irwin, CA. For example, if a survey identifies 1000 sites, ATMAS can allow the managers to disregard the bottom 20 to 30%, diverting their limited resources to protecting the most significant or most sensitive sites. 18 The —Controlled Archaeological Test Site“ (CATS) Facility This 50x50 m facility was created in the mid-1980s by John Isaacson, at the time when CERL archaeologists were embarking in geophysical explorations. It was motivated by the desire to create a —type collection“ of geophysical signatures for a variety of buried archaeological features. Because the precise nature and location of these features were documented in detail, CATS could be used repeatedly, as geophysical and computer (software and hardware) technology improved and new pieces of equipment became available. The facility is still attracting investigators from Illinois and other states, but it is not as widely used nowadays as it had been ten years ago. Its use is plagued by radar clutter due to changes in the surficial soils over the years, as heavy equipment have traversed the site and sometimes dumped new material over it, making the identification of rather subtle features all but impossible. Predictive Modeling Predictive modeling is one of the techniques that can be used at the Phase I survey stage in order to characterize large areas with regard to the probability of encountering archaeological resources in them. A primitive predictive model is the one according to which high probability areas are known to occur very often at a certain distance from major stream channels. More sophisticated models have been developed in several states, relying on large bodies of existing data concerning site distribution. Depending on the level of probability of site occurrence assigned by a predictive model to a particular area, managers may recommend different types and intensity of treatments. The output of a predictive model is also useful to the office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in deciding whether to grant construction permits to a variety of agencies. Similarly, on a military installation, predictive models can influence 19 decisions regarding both construction and military training activities. Although it is often not possible to avoid certain areas, managers may be able to protect the most significant and most sensitive ones, as well as to mitigate the adverse effects on others. CERL personnel are currently involved in producing a predictive model for Fort Irwin, CA, slated to be expanded by 133,000 acres in the near future. The entire installation is about 1,000 sq. miles and is the U.S. Army‘s national training center, located in the middle of the Mojave desert. In addition to archaeologists, the predictive modeling team includes a geographer and cartographer who is an expert in GIS technologies, and a geomorphologist from the Mojave Desert Research Institute. The main objective of the project is to facilitate compliance efforts with regard to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the U.S. Army regulations, etc. Eight dependent variables are considered, including, slope, aspect, elevation, soil type and water content, proximity to water, vegetation and geomorphology. The latter is considered an essential enhancement to previous predictive modeling efforts. The independent variable is the site archaeological expression, and separate models are used to predict habitation, lithic reduction and rock art site variability. The latter refers to the presence of pictographs found in rocky shelters. The immediate goal of the models is to provide information concerning how and where to look for sites, so that pedestrian surveys are reduced, yet buried sites, such as those encountered under alluvial fans, are not missed. It is anticipated that the models will also be useful in the long-term management of cultural resources located on the installation. In developing their predictive models for Fort Irwin, CA CERL researchers are incorporating expertise from a variety of other disciplines; for example, the GIS expert on the 20 team was previously engaged in vector analysis for the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Illinois, concerned with the spread of livestock diseases. Investigators are also aware of the concerns and possible input from environmental groups, interested in the wildlife of the region, notably the endangered desert tortoise, California‘s state reptile. A major difficulty encountered was related to the uniformity and reliability of enormous quantities of data, collected over the last 30 years. Dealing with this situation required several months of painstaking labor. CERL is also involved in developing predictive models for other military installations, but these are not as advanced as the effort for Fort Irwin, CA. The —Cultural Resources Tool Kit“ Because of the similarity of methods used in archaeological prospecting and activities such as those related to biological assessment, wetlands remediation or the protection of endangered species, CERL archaeologists are pursuing the development of a —Cultural Resources Tool Kit,“ which can serve multiple disciplines. The Kit will provide an automated system of recording, archiving and presenting information collected on site, in a manner that reduces errors because of human involvement in data transfer and expedites the production of maps and other publications. It will include equipment such as a digital camera for visual and audio recording, a laser range finder, a barometer, and electronic compass, a GPS locator, etc., which will record their data simultaneously and automatically. It is anticipated that the use of the Kit will enhance the tasks of conducting surveys and other fieldwork as well as for reporting their findings by about one-third. The development cost will be reduced by making the Kit relevant to other professionals, notably environmentalists. 21 The —Electronic Tool Box“ In an effort to comply with the Department of Defense (DOD) instruction requiring all military installations to perform integrated cultural resources and natural resources management, CERL investigators are engaged in creating an Electronic Tool Box to help resource managers or contractors develop and implement their respective management plans. This effort relies on inputs from master planners in different services, at Headquarters, as well as major Command levels; its product is information regarding the management, integration, monitoring and reporting of cultural and natural resources. The basic component of the Box is a web page, clicking on the various tabs of which allows the formulation of a management plan that will include large sections of baseline information required, e.g., a description of the responsibilities of the cultural resource manager with respect to the master planner‘s office and of the master planner‘s responsibilities with respect to the cultural management office; army regulations; DOD instructions; optimal communication recommendations; data regarding the other federal agencies that may be involved; cultural resource and other guide documents; etc. The resulting plan will consist of three chapters, to be updated as the plan is implemented. The first will describe the current status of the program, whereas the second and third chapters will detail the one-year and five-year outlooks for it; the entire plan will be mission driven. Prototype Boxes have been prepared for the Army‘s Fort Lewis, the Washington Navy Yard and the Edwards Air Force Base. In all cases, it was found essential that the cultural manager of the facility should remain engaged in the development effort during all its stages. PowerPoint Presentations Two sets of PowerPoint slides recently prepared by CERL personnel illustrating the 22 issues discussed above are appended at the end of this Report. 1.3 State of Indiana The involvement of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) gov/dot/> in the preservation of historic and archaeologically important resources in the state pertains only to the protection of historic bridges. The Environmental Assessment Section under the Environment, Planning and Engineering Division is currently preparing a list of these historic bridges. Such bridges are offered for sale to the public according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and implemented by the "Procedures for the Protection and Enhancement of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR 800). The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) organization involved with cultural resource protection and historic site management across the state, along with other environment protection and natural resource preservation related duties. The Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDHPA) of the Indiana DNR is active in performing archaeological studies as well as formulating and seeking the adoption of necessary measures for the preservation of historic places. 1.3.1 Department of Transportation Indiana (INDOT) - Environment, Planning and Engineering Division - Environmental Assessment Section To make sure that the INDOT projects are compliant with the relevant environmental laws and regulations as responsible to and compatible with the human and natural environment, 23 the Environmental Assessment Section under the Environment, Planning and Engineering Division of INDOT provides consultation in all phases of the projects, seeking to integrate sound environmental practice in transportation design. The main function of this Section is to prepare documents in accordance with the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) for federally funded INDOT projects and to review NEPA documents for federally funded local projects. In particular, the Section considers the potential impact of road improvement projects on historic and archaeological resources threatened and endangered species, socio-economics, wetlands and water quality, farmlands, etc. Potentially sensitive aspects are identified during the development of a project using on site data collection and through collaboration with other state, local and federal preservation agencies. Such efforts result in safer and efficient transportation facilities and also minimize the impact and damage to communities, state resources and the natural environment. Currently, the Section is also conducting a statewide program to protect bridges of historic importance, by preparing a list so as to make them available for sale to the public. A brief description of various studies undertaken by INDOT is given below. I-69 Henderson, KY to Evansville Corridor study In 2000, INDOT contracted the firm HNTB Corporation to work on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Engineering Assessment of alternatives for a proposed I-69 corridor in the Henderson, Kentucky-Evansville, Indiana area. The purpose of the study was to determine the benefits of a new corridor, as well as to identify the potential impacts of such a project. Coordinating the environmental data collection and analysis for the I-69 study is the consulting engineering firm of Bernardin-Lochmueller and Associates, who have requested individuals and agencies in the Evansville/Henderson area to assist its study team as consulting 24 parties. Participating with the consultants, the parties will seek ways to avoid, mitigate any detrimental effects on the historic and archaeological sites in the study area. Hoosier Heartland State Route 25 Study This project involves the construction of a transportation corridor that will stretch over 99 miles from Lafayette to Fort Wayne, providing safer and more comfortable travel. Presnell Associates of Indiana Inc. was selected in 2000 by INDOT to perform the preliminary design and environmental work tasks for this project. Environmental scientists are studying the impact of each alternative on the wetlands, endangered species, historic properties and archaeological sites present in that area, air and water quality, noise and land use, etc. US-231 Relocation Study This project is located in Tippercanoe County, in the vicinity of West Lafayette, between SR-26 and US-52. INDOT in association with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is reevaluating the alternatives initially proposed for the relocation of the US-231. This highway relocation project also involves studies on its environmental impact and its effects on the historic and archaeological resources in the area. Michael Baker Jr., Inc., a General Engineering Consultant, was charged in 2001 with preparing additional environmental documentation regarding the northern portion of this project. A description of activities to be undertaken with regard to archaeological resources is included in a draft Phase I Survey Report prepared in March 2002 by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. It is stated that "field methods utilized will be consistent with the Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory - Archaeological Sites (IDHPA Guidebook) prepared by the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDHPA), along with pre-fieldwork consultation with INDOT and IDHPA. In general, those 25 portions of the [project] that have good surface visibility (greater than or equal to 30 percent) will be surface collected for archaeological remains, while shovel test probes will be excavated at 32.8 foot intervals in areas with less than 30 percent surface visibility and with slopes of less than 25 percent. Close interval probes typically will surround positive probes until a ring of negative probes delineates site boundaries. In some cases, site boundaries may be delineated in part by topography and/or modern disturbance. In addition, shovel test probing typically will not extend beyond the construction limits of the [project]." 1.3.2 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology The Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDHPA) administers ways to preserve the man made heritage of historic places and buildings as an essential aspect in the protection of the historic and cultural resources of the state. All programs conducted by this Division are mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act 1966, and are related to such properties from individual sites to historic districts, including large-scale public buildings and houses, modest workers' cottages, commercial and industrial buildings, covered bridges, archaeological sites, and churches. The Archaeology Section of IDHPA performs investigations and takes measures to protect the archaeological sites. Staff archaeologists seek to promote an awareness and appreciation of Indiana's archaeological heritage through training and educational programs, and publications. They initiate surveys to identify sites and record sites in a statewide inventory. They review projects that might impact archaeological sites, and they collect and interpret data. Currently, a statewide database of all recorded archaeological sites is being 26 created. This effort will be of great assistance to the INDOT as well as DNR Indiana in streamlining the review of federally funded or licensed projects (Section 106 review). 1.3.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Indiana Organizations A list of important contact persons and their respective organizations, their positions, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are provided in Table 1.2. 1.3.4 Interview (1 of 2): DNR Dr James R. Jones III, State Archaeologist with the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources in Indianapolis, IN, was interviewed by Dr Anastasios M. Ioannides on 6/5/02. The notes below highlight the issues discussed by Dr Jones and the information he provided to Dr Ioannides. Organizational Information The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is headed by John R. Goss, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and is organized into three Divisions: The Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDHPA) under Jon Smith, Director and Deputy SHPO; the National Register Division; and the Historic Structures Review Division. The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology currently employs three in-house archaeologists, namely Dr Jones, Jim Mohow, senior archaeologist responsible for Section 106 and state project reviews, and Amy Johnson, research archaeologist who is involved in surface mining reviews and acts as the Division‘s education coordinator. In addition, DNR employs a State Historic Architect who reviews issues pertaining to historic structures. 27 Indiana Archaeology Archeological activities in the state of Indiana were initiated about 100 years, primarily under the Indiana Historical Society and the Indiana Historical Bureau. These organizations were particularly active in the 1920s and 1930s. At about that time, entrepreneur Eli Lilly was actively involved in archaeology as an avocation, and also sponsored the activities of archaeologists such as Glen Black and James Keller. Site records were initially transferred to the Glen Black Laboratory at Indiana University at Bloomington. In more recent years, a number of Universities, such as Ball State University and the Indiana State University, became very active in archaeological work, generating and storing a considerable amount of site information. The involvement of the DNR began in the late 1970s, with the appointment of the first state archaeologist, Gary Ellis, the predecessor of Dr Jones. At that time, federal grants as well as monies from the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service funded reconnaissance surveys aimed at identifying and protecting archaeological sites in the state. Records from these efforts are kept at the IDHPA of DNR. Archaeological Database for Indiana The need to compile all the available information about Indiana‘s archaeological resources was recognized in the 1980s. An early version of an in-house database was developed at IDHPA in 1990, funded by the Office of Surface Mining. It was coded in FileMaker and included only about 11,000 site records from about 20 of the state‘s 92 counties. Subsequently, through additional surveys and accumulation of records from institutions around the state, the DNR‘s database grew to its current 46,500 records covering the entire state. Each site record is essentially a very long and detailed site-form, containing Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 28 references and about 150 fields, each with a variety of choices and pop-up menus. This has transformed IDHPA into the central depository of archaeological for the state, where all new information collected is stored and verified. The database has been documented in an article under the title —Creating Indiana‘s Computerized Database“ and has been a very useful resource for managers in a variety of state and private agencies. The security of the database is a sensitive issue and is maintained with the help of in-house computer specialists. In the 1990s, there were three persons engaged in the creation and updating of the database, which received about 2000 new site records every year. More recently, however, economic constraints have essentially frozen all activities in connection to the database. It is hoped that this situation will be reversed in the near future, allowing IDHPA to partner with major Universities that have strong computer engineering departments, such as Purdue and Indiana University so as to expand the database. It is desirable to enhance the database by the inclusion of GIS capabilities available at DNR. Moreover, there are plans to compile holdings at various institutions into a statewide computerized listing of archaeological literature by tittle, county, author or year of publication. Improved policies regulating the access of such databases are needed, to ensure that qualified professionals can benefit from them fully, without jeopardizing the integrity of the sites and of other resources. Predictive Modeling in Indiana The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) has explored the idea of creating an archaeological predictive model on a number of occasions, at least since the early 1990s. A meeting of experts was hosted six years ago, and presentations from several states were made, including Illinois and Minnesota. Indiana is different from these states, however, both 29 physiographically and culturally. The primary cultural horizon is that of archaic times, spanning the long period from about 4000 BC to about 1500 BC; if the terminal archaic interval is included, then the period overlaps with early Roman times and extends as late as 700 BC. Moreover, the approach to archaeological investigations is also different: for example, post civil war sites and sites in urban areas or in the prairie receive the same attention as all other sites in Indiana, whereas in Illinois they are often ignored. In establishing a new highway route, INDOT considers several possible corridors and eventually settles on one of them based on considerations that include the presence of archaeological resources. It is desirable to map the physiographic details of each site, and then to access such maps by stream or by highway, as INDOT might be interested in. These are some of the reasons that may explain why the creation of a database has advanced much more than the development of a predictive model in Indiana. 1.3.5 Interview (2 of 2): INDOT Mr Curtis Tomak, archaeologist with the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) in Indianapolis, IN, was interviewed by Dr Anastasios M. Ioannides on 6/5/02. The notes below highlight the issues discussed by Dr Jones and the information he provided to Dr Ioannides. Archaeology at INDOT Mr Tomak is currently the only archaeologist on the staff of INDOT, having been with the agency for twenty five years; there are currently no institutional plans for a successor when he retires. Prior to joining INDOT, he served as curator of the Glen Black Laboratory at IU Bloomington, from where he earned his archaeology degree. Mr Tomak is not engaged in any field activities himself. Such work is contracted out to several Universities as well as private 30 consultants who perform the necessary archaeological tasks. Instead, Mr Tomak troubleshoots when the need arises on a specific project or individual consultant report. During the route selection stage, archaeologists check existing site records, examine the natural setting of each proposed corridor and prepare archaeological potential assessment report. After the most desirable route is selected, additional more intensive archaeological investigations are conducted. INDOT is involved in numerous small projects, and each of these calls for some amount of archaeological work, as mandated by law every time right-of-way is taken. These efforts generate many survey reports, which are sent to the IDHPA of the DNR for review. Currently, the collection spans the last 25 years or more, and contains site information useful when a new project occurs nearby. The reports are catalogued by County and are shelved at INDOT and IDHPA. There is currently no computerized catalog of such reports. INDOT funded a cataloguing effort by IDHPA several years ago, whose product includes information from other paper sources in abstracted form, and is, therefore, subject to errors introduced during the process of abstraction. In 1996, there was an extensive review of the archaeological programs of INDOT. In several hours of meetings between INDOT and IDHPA personnel, as well as specialists from other states (e.g., IL and IN), current and future directions were discussed, including the development of a predictive model. Predictive Modeling for INDOT The following are important concerns for INDOT with regard to the development of an archaeological predictive model. Accurate computerized information is needed. The current holdings are the results of accumulation over many years, by a variety of people, whose viewpoints, purposes, skill and experience varied widely. Consequently, important information 31 is often incomplete (e.g., UTMs may be missing), erroneous or entirely omitted. It is not apparent that a single predictive model will be suitable for every type of site, minor or major. INDOT projects encounter cemeteries, Indian burials, Indian villages, sites with disparate land use patterns, reflecting different subsistence patterns (e.g., hunting/gathering versus horticulturalist). It is essential that a predictive model aid managers to identify sites of a particular type or signature based on an examination of the physiographic, geomorphologic or other settings encountered. It is anticipated that in the near foreseeable future INDOT will continue to work with consultants from Universities and the private sector, as it has done in the past. 1.4 State of Kentucky The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) committed to protecting the environment and historic sites of Kentucky even as it pursues the construction and maintenance of a safe and well-planned transportation network. As demonstrated by four recent KTC projects, construction need not necessarily harm the environment or the state's heritage. Twelve new environmental coordinators have recently been appointed by KTC, whose job is to identify and help preserve environmental and historical treasures that might be affected by transportation development and construction. The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC) known as State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), is another state organization involved in cultural resource preservation. The mandate of KHC is to identify, preserve and protect the 32 cultural resources of Kentucky. The KHC maintains continually updated inventories of historic and archaeological sites, and of properties nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 1.4.1 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) endeavors to provide an efficient transportation system to the state, but not at the cost of its heritage or environment. Modern construction methods and technologies enable the KTC to protect the state's cultural and natural resources. In addition, the KTC has recently employed twelve environmental coordinators, one for each of the highway districts, to ensure the adoption of similar techniques throughout the state in order to protect environmental and historic resources. These coordinators work for the KTC Division of Environmental Analysis (DEA), whose main function is to provide a single point of contact to the general public and to Cabinet employees for environmental guidance, information, and concerns. The DEA facilitates the Cabinet's mission by ensuring that planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance projects and activities that have potential to impact the social, economic, or physical environment are identified and evaluated and their impacts minimized by implementing informed decisions and sound environmental policies. The Division performs these responsibilities through the review, preparation, and procurement of environmental documents, contracts, or actions as made necessary by state and federal environmental laws and regulations. Given below are details of several recent projects that showcase the efforts of KTC to preserve environmental and historic resources, while continuing development of the state's transportation facilities. Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County 33 During the planning for and design of the KY 114 highway, the Middle Creek Battlefield and related sites have received special attention by the KTC. During the early phases of highway construction, the KTC partnered with the State Historic Preservation Officer of the Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC), as well as with property owners, to minimize the impact of construction and highway development on this Civil War site. This is now protected and aesthetically enhanced by a guard wall, bridge abutments, an earthen berm, reinforced grass shoulders, and other features. In addition, the Middle Creek Battlefield Historic Landmark Foundation is soliciting financial resources to build a kiosk, a parking area, a walking trail, a visitor center, and a floating pedestrian bridge. Cemetery Road, Bowling Green, Warren County The Cemetery Road Project (KY 234) will provide a new interchange with I-65 by widening and relocating the current busy route. The design of this road involves installation of berms, natural walls to reduce the noise level and isolate the residential areas from traffic. The James F. Ewing House is one of several homes identified as historically significant within the area of the project. The KTC conducted cultural, historical and archaeological resource studies to ensure no impacts on these structures would occur as a result of the project. Historic Site of Monterey, Bourbon County Archeological research at the 19th century village of Monterey is an excellent example of KTC efforts to document and preserve Kentucky's past. Future analysis of food remains, ceramics and other artifacts will provide clues about the largely undocumented lives of everyday rural Kentuckians. The lifestyles of African-Americans before and after the Civil War are expected to be particularly revealing, especially when compared to those of Monterey's white 34 residents. The Land Between The Lakes The Land Between The Lakes is a national recreational area and a nature preserve in a heavy traffic region. Improvements to U.S. 68/KY 80 are expected to support the regional economic development goals of Western Kentucky and correct existing roadway and bridge deficiencies. Over 20 archeological and 3 known prehistoric sites have been identified in the project area. Six properties have been found to meet National Register of Historic Places criteria, two of which are major bridges. There are several historical markers identifying the War Between the States that took place in the area. Wildlife is very diverse: plants, trees, and a wide range of vegetation thrive in the area, some of which are endangered species. The area has many streams, wetlands, and floodplains that require special attention. Maintaining the serene, natural environment for which the Land is known is goal of a detailed mitigation program adopted by KTC. The Kentucky 52 Improvement Project The Kentucky 52 Improvement Project is located in a very historic section of Garrard and Madison Counties. During the planning process, the Transportation Cabinet invited the public to participate in defining the proposed project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), and identifying cultural resources that may be considered significant within that APE. This section of Kentucky contains recorded sites from both prehistoric and early settlement periods of the state's history, as well as buildings dating to the early part of the 19th century. 35 1.4.2 The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC) or State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC) or State Historic Preservations Office (SHPO) is a state organization whose purpose is to identify and protect the historic and cultural resources of the state of Kentucky. The KHC maintains a continually updated register of the historic structures, archaeological sites and other properties nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. Seeking to create greater awareness of the state's past and perform long-term preservation of the state's cultural resources, the KHC coordinates its activities with other state and federal agencies, local communities and interested citizens. The Kentucky Archaeological Survey (KAS) is a joint effort between the KHC and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky, providing services to state agencies with archaeological needs and generating educational opportunities for students to work in all aspects of cultural resource management. Computerization and maintenance of the statewide archaeological site inventory, enhanced protection of archaeological resources and investigations of archaeological sites are some focal areas of past KAS activities. In the future, KAS personnel will conduct archeological surveys, limited test excavations, and large-scale excavation projects, as requested by state agencies. In addition, the Survey will assist in the updating and maintenance of the existing computerized database of archaeological sites and responding to requests for information. 1.4.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in Kentucky Organizations A list of important contact persons and their respective organizations, their positions, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are provided in Table 1.3. 36 1.5 State of West Virginia Historic preservation activities at the West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) Environmental Services Section in the Engineering Division. The latter is one of four divisions of the Division of Highways (DOH), and its function is engineering and development of all contract plans. On several projects related to archaeology, WVDOT has contracted the cultural resources unit of a private consulting firm, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. cultural/projects.htm>. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History consults with this agency as well on various projects across the state. 1.5.1 West Virginia Department of Transportation - Division of Highways - Engineering Division - Environmental Services Section - Archaeology Unit The Environmental Service Section (ESS) at WVDOT prepares all environmental documents necessary for each highway project in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Department of Transportation's Regulations Act and pertinent Executive Orders. Environmental Services also acts as liaison between various historical and resource government agencies and other divisions within the Department. The Archaeology Unit of ESS performs reconnaissance surveys for bridge replacement and small highway projects; and coordinates with consultants, state and Federal agencies, and other Division of Highways offices on major transportation projects at various stages of development. 37 The private consulting firm of Michael Baker Jr., Inc. has been contracted by WVDOT to perform archaeological research on proposed highway projects. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. has collaborated with WVDOT on five projects that dealt with investigation and exploration of sites of historic and cultural importance, discovered in the course of planning and construction of highway projects. For each of these projects, investigators from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. have prepared survey reports to WVDOT. Brief descriptions of these projects are provided below. The Appalachian Corridor H- Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Michael Baker Jr., Inc. performed cultural resources investigations on approximately 161 km (100 miles) of highway right-of-way through the east-central portion of West Virginia, otherwise known as the Appalachian Corridor H project area. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. developed an archaeological predictive model, integrated with GIS, to help locate the project alternative in a manner sensitive to cultural resources. As part of the cultural resource efforts, a multi-volume prehistoric and historic context report was prepared and submitted to the client, the West Virginia Department of Transportation. Between 1994 and 1996, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. conducted Phase I archaeological investigations across the entire project route, and prepared reports summarizing the results of these studies. In 1996, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. began 32 Phase II archaeological investigations, a process that progressed through the middle of 1997. As part of this complex project, the Cultural Resource Section of Michael Baker Jr., Inc. prepared a Memorandum of Agreement for the project, dealing with cultural resource issues. This agreement, drafted in 1995, was signed by all participating parties: the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the West Virginia Department of Transportation, and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History. 38 Cardinal States Methane Gathering Line Re-route Michael Baker Jr., Inc. conducted a Phase I investigation of the re-route of the Cardinal States Methane Gathering line in Mingo County. The pre-field portion of the reconnaissance consisted of a background literature search and examination of the site survey files at the West Virginia Department of Culture and History. The field portion of the reconnaissance consisted of a pedestrian walkover of the entire Study Area by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. archaeologists. In topographic zones with less than 15% slope that were otherwise capable of supporting a prehistoric or historic occupation, 50 cm (19.6 in) diameter shovel probes were excavated in natural levels to culturally sterile soil. Probes were positioned along a linear transect at an interval of 15 m (49.2 ft). With the exception of a single utilized aboriginal biface fragment, no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the Phase I reconnaissance. It was concluded that construction activities within the project right-of-way would not impact cultural resources of potential eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. detailed the results of the investigation in a complete Phase I report completed within two weeks of the end of the fieldwork. Reed Farmstead Phase III Data Recovery Investigations This site is wholly contained within the Appalachian Corridor H right-of-way, which afforded the rare opportunity for complete site excavation. The subsurface investigations by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. took the form of systematic metal detecting, 50 x 50 cm sampling units at a 3 m interval across the entire defined site, 1 x 1 m test units in contiguous blocks within and around identified cultural features, and mechanical stripping. The plethora of metal detection "hits" were recorded and mapped to examine distributional patterning. Elevational data was 39 recorded from across the site via an EDM to generate three-dimensional mapping, and digital photography was employed in recording all aspects of the project. West Virginia Route 9 Mount Pleasant Site This site lies wholly within the right-of-way limits of the Preferred Alternative of the Proposed West Virginia Route 9 Project, located in Jefferson County. The site was identified during Phase I testing, and subsequent testing suggested the site to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places due to incredible preservation and the potential to contribute to our understanding of the early history of the region and the nation. Over 100 m2 have been excavated, yielding over 50,000 artifacts and uncovering several intact cultural features including brick and stone lined sub-surface storage features and a large rectangular basement/root cellar feature. West Virginia Route 9 Upgrade Phase I and II Investigations Situated in Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, the project area is approximately 10 miles long and travels roughly northwest and southeast between the county seats of Martinsburg and Charles Town. The region is topographically, socially, economically and historically diverse, having been located at the "fracture zone" of North-South aggressions during the Civil War. The project area was the site of many military engagements during that conflagration. To date, research and testing has resulted in the identification of 27 archaeological sites, with 7 of those recommended for further study. Of the sites considered for more work, five are prehistoric, two are historic, and one is multi-component. 40 1.5.2 West Virginia Division of Culture and History - State Historic Preservation Office The mission of the Division of Culture and History's State Historic Preservation Office is to encourage, inform, support, and participate in the efforts of the people of West Virginia to identify, recognize, preserve and protect West Virginia's prehistoric and historic structures, objects and sites. The Office administers both the state and federal historic preservation programs. It aids federal and state agencies, local governments and the general public in identifying and preserving the physical historic and prehistoric resources of West Virginia. As the primary State agency responsible for the stewardship of historic resources in West Virginia, it is part of the intention of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to take the lead in preservation planning. To this end, it maintains and revises on a five-year schedule a Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan. The plan, which is developed with extensive public input, compiles and outlines such things as issues that challenge historic preservation in West Virginia, the condition of various historic and cultural resources throughout the state, and a series of goals and objectives that will be implemented to further the protection of our valued resources. 1.5.3 Important Persons and Contact Individuals in West Virginia Organizations A list of important contact persons and their respective organizations, their positions, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are provided in Table 1.4. 41 Table 1.1 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Illinois ILLINOIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROGRAM AGENCY (IHPA) (ITARP), UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT 500 East Madison, Springfield, IL 62701 URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 1 Old State Capitol, Springfield, IL 62701 Department of Anthropology Phone: (217) 785-1511; (217) 785-4512 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, 23 East Stadium Fax: (217) 785-7937 Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION 42 Table 1.2 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Indiana INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESœ INDIANA DIVISION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ARCHAEOLOGY 402 West Washington Street, Room W274, Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 232-1646 Fax: (317) 232-0693 43 Table 1.3 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of Kentucky KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CABINET (KTC) OFFICE/ KENTUCKY HERITAGE 501 High Street, Frankfort, KY 40622 COUNCIL Phone: (502) 564-4890 300 Washington Street, Frankfort, KY 40601 Fax: (502) 564-4809 Phone: (502) 564-7005 44 Table 1.4 List of Organizations and Contact Persons in the State of West Virginia WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WVDOT) MICHAEL BAKER Jr., Inc. WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY/ STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE The Cultural Center, Capitol Complex, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25305-0300 Phone: (304) 550-0220 Fax: (304) 558-2779 Pierce, Susan, Director, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for Resource Protection Phone: (304) 558-0220 x. 158 45 2 A PREDICTIVE MODEL OF PRECONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATION FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ACKNOWLEDGMENT Reproduced in this Chapter are two extensive excerpts from a CD-ROM containing the Final Report of the Minnesota Archaeological Predictive Model (MN/Model) [Copyright 2002, Minnesota Department of Transportation], made available to the University of Cincinnati research team following an e-mail request to: EXCERPT 2.1 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY by Allyson Brooks, G. Joseph Hudak, Guy E. Gibbon, and Elizabeth Hobbs 2.1.1 Introduction The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) budgets over one million dollars annually for the identification and evaluation of historic and archaeological resources (historic properties) that are threatened by transportation related undertakings. Without a means of determining the most probable locations for archaeological resources, archaeological surveys must be conducted to meet the requirements set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. When archaeological resources are encountered, 46 costs arise not only in determining their eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, but also in potential project delays, mitigation measures, and the loss of the cultural resources. In the early 1990s, Mn/DOT conducted a review of their cultural resource process that sought new approaches towards fulfilling the requirements set forth by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires that federal agencies make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties within the project area and conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to cultural resources before any federally funded or federally overseen project can proceed. To meet this mandate, Mn/DOT previously relied on the largely intuitive precontact site location models of State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff and other archaeological professionals. This method depended on the depth of experience of the professionals involved and could easily be altered with changes in personnel. As a result of their review, Mn/DOT initiated the development of a statewide Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based predictive model for prehistoric archaeological site locations. The use of GIS allows for the efficient, cost-effective, and repeatable generation of scientifically testable conclusions as to the most probable locations for pre-1837 archaeological properties. The statewide predictive model, developed over a three-year period, is called the Minnesota Archaeological Predictive Model (MN/Model). It was funded by Mn/DOT using money made available through the Federal Highway Administration's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The results of Mn/Model will be incorporated into the earliest phases of project concept planning, making transportation planners aware of the possible locations of precontact archaeological sites. Although survey efforts to actually identify sites will still be 47 necessary, Mn/Model allows cultural resource managers to objectively focus their efforts and planners to prepare alternative avoidance design scenarios. It will also be instrumental in preparing budget and schedule estimates allotted for both individual projects and longer range management activities. 2.1.2 Purpose and Scope of Project Purpose The primary objective of the Mn/Model project was to create a series of accurate digital maps capable of alerting planners to the presence of potential precontact archaeological properties in accordance with the identification requirements set forth in Section 106. By using Geographic Information Systems, digital maps were created that delineate areas of high, medium, and low archaeological site potential based on statistical correlations between environmental attributes and known archaeological site locations. Linking this information with areas of high, medium, and low survey coverage directs where archaeological survey efforts should be concentrated. It also assists planners in avoiding areas that potentially contain cultural resources requiring costly mitigation or in weighing the cost of their disturbance against other project effects, such as wetland disturbance or socioeconomic impacts. This change in approach permits planners to conduct advance planning and base decisions on sound scientific findings. Scope Mn/Model is a Geographic Information Systems-based predictive model encompassing the entire State of Minnesota. However, Minnesota's wide range of environmental zones dictated 48 the development of a series of submodels, rather than one single statewide model. Mn/Model became a series of regional models based on the Ecological Classification System subsections defined for the state by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and U. S. Forest Service (Hanson and Hargrave 1996). Both these regional models and Mn/Model as a whole are dynamic and will increase in accuracy as Mn/Model improves with new data. Mn/Model's temporal scope is pre-1837. It is designed to predict the locations of both precontact (pre-A.D. 1650) and contact (1650-1837) period archaeological sites. Since the locations of historic (post-1837) sites can be determined more accurately through archival research, post-1837 sites were eliminated from consideration. There are a total of 45 sites included in the models dating to the contact period that lack precontact components. This compares to a total of 5,769 sites employed in the models. 2.1.3 Concepts Over the past two decades, there has been a resurgence of interest among cultural resource managers in constructing predictive models for prehistoric site locations. This renewed interest is the result of both rapid developments in GIS technology that make the modeling process more efficient (Kvamme 1986; Kohler and Parker 1986; Judge and Sebastian 1988; Allen et al. 1990; Dalla Bona 1994; Marschner 1996) and public pressure to conduct cultural resource activities in a cost-effective manner. Mn/Model, following the example of previous modeling efforts, is based on the assumption that the most important factors controlling precontact hunter-gatherer settlement and 49 activity location decisions were physical and biotic attributes of the landscape (Dalla Bona 1994:17; Kohler and Parker 1986:400). This is in contrast to more technologically complex societies, where social, ideological, and political forces can take precedence over environmental factors in influencing settlement location. As a result of this assumption, Mn/Model and many other contemporary modeling efforts rely on a series of biophysical variables (e.g. slope, elevation, soils, proximity to various water sources, vegetation) to construct models. The reliance on these types of variables has led to criticism that the resulting models are environmentally deterministic (Kohler 1998:9). Although archeologists who construct predictive models recognize the importance of cultural factors in the location of settlements, they contend that the temporal control needed to establish contemporaneity between sites is usually lacking. Consequently it is difficult, if not impossible, in most situations to include these variables in the modeling process (Brandt et al. 1992:269: Kvamme 1997: 1-2). This is not to negate the possibility that there were site locations chosen for reasons other than baseline economics. However, the foundational premise for archaeological predictive model building in regions like Minnesota is that, for the most part, activity location before the historic period was primarily determined by the distribution of local and regional environmental resources. Other basic assumptions of the project are that (1) environmental attributes of the precontact period are still identifiable, at least in two dimensions, in current data sources; and (2) correlations between precontact archaeological site locations and environmental variables reflect spatial organization across the landscape during the precontact period (Dalla Bona 1994:16-17). Mn/Model, through its geomorphological paleo-landscape component, incorporates the third and fourth dimensions of time and buried Holocene landscapes/surfaces for areas with higher 50 probabilities for buried cultural resources. This was done for seven river valleys (Minnesota River, Mississippi River north of St. Cloud, Rainy River, Red River, Rock River, Root River, and St. Croix River), an ancient glacial lake bed (Red Lake Bog), and a limited number of small upland areas. This is a unique aspect of Mn/Model that has not been previously attempted by other modeling efforts on this scale. 2.1.4 Methodology Mn/Model is designed to be an empiric correlative (inductive) rather than a deductive predictive model (Kohler and Parker 1986:399; Dalla Bona 1994:5). This is the most popular approach in predictive modeling (Thomas 1988:Table A.1). In empiric correlative models, no presuppositions are made other than: ! in non-complex societies "the most important economic transactions for most people were with the environment"; ! "humans tend to minimize the time or effort expended in their economic transactions with the environment"; and ! by implication, human activities and settlements tend to be located "close to environmental resources" (Kohler and Parker 1986:400). The results of empiric correlative models are developed inductively by exploring associations between specific environmental variables and archaeological site locations. In these models, the dependent variables are archaeological events (i.e. sites), and the independent variables are biophysical characteristics of locations, such as slope, soil type, elevation, plant 51 community, and distance to water. Statistical analysis is used to identify relationships between the environmental and archaeological attributes, generating combinations of environmental variables that correlate with the presence or absence of sites. The other approach to predictive modeling relies more heavily on deductive reasoning. Sometimes referred to as explanatory or systemic modeling (Kohler 1988:35-38; Sebastian and Judge 1988:4), deductive models rely on hypothesized relationships between various biophysical and/or cultural factors to predict site locations (Thomas 1998:Table A.1). The ultimate goal is to explain the distribution of settlements across the landscape in terms of various social, political, ideological, and physical factors that are assumed to be significant. The location of sites and their contents are placed within a larger organizational system where past and anticipated uses of the land intertwine with how intensively resources are exploited and how they are distributed through time and space (Ebert and Kohler 1988: 107-109, 134-139). The models range from informal intuitive ones developed by most archaeologists through experience, to somewhat more formal ones (Cassell et al. 1997: Dalla Bona and Larcombe 1996). This approach is sometimes taken when there is insufficient data to build inductive-correlative models like Mn/Model. To accommodate the technical requirements of the project, Mn/Model used Geographic Information Systems as the generative framework. GIS incorporates the essential elements of computer cartography and relational database management into one system. It efficiently handles very large databases, maintains links between maps and tabular data, and allows for the analysis of spatial relations. This includes analytical and modeling functions that are not practical or possible with other methods. Minnesota is 80,000 square miles in extent and has thousands of recorded archaeological sites. Each environmental database had to contain more than 586 million 52 data values to cover the entire state at the required resolution. Without GIS, the storage and manipulation of the required high resolution geographic databases would have been unmanageable. Archaeological site information was obtained from the SHPO database and from Chippewa and Superior National Forest and National Park Service databases. The SHPO database contains information from cultural resource surveys, Phase III (excavation) mitigation, the Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Survey (MnSAS), and other sources, such as early mound surveys in the state. These data were carefully filtered for quality control. Since archaeological site information from the Chippewa and Superior National Forest and National Park Service databases were not included in the SHPO database, and, since they represented the majority of surveys over large regions in northern Minnesota, their inclusion greatly facilitated site location modeling in the northeastern and north-central parts of the state. The Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Survey, a probabilistic survey conducted between 1977 and 1981, contributed data gathered through a variety of survey procedures, including stratified random sampling, sampling by landscape type, and professional intuition. These surveys were carried out to varying degrees in 26 counties, resulting in large samples of site and non-site locations. The first archaeological field season of Mn/Model was designed to replicate the results of MnSAS in order to assess their conclusions. The second field season generated data based on a simple random sampling procedure. Along with site location data, negative survey data were collected from all parts of the state for comparison with site locations. Single artifacts (find locations), which are not considered significant archaeological properties, were excluded from the analysis when constructing the final models. 53 The following procedures were developed for Mn/Model: ! standards for collecting, evaluating, and filtering archaeological data; ! standards for conversion and analysis of environmental data; ! statistical methods for identifying relationships between archaeological and environmental variables; ! criteria for evaluating model effectiveness; ! procedures and standards for documenting methodology and results; ! methods for identifying paleo-landscapes and their integrity to assess the potential for deeply buried archaeological properties; ! methods incorporating paleo-climatic data; and, ! plans for implementing and enhancing the model in the future. The three-year project was divided into three phases. Phase 1 involved basic data accumulation and model development. Environmental and archaeological attributes for 26 counties, with site location data gathered through the MnSAS surveys, were incorporated into the GIS in conjunction with new information gained from the Mn/Model Phase 1 field inventories. Prototype GIS models were derived, using logistic regression for the Phase 1 counties. Phase 2 consisted of incorporating the remaining 58 counties, which had site location data collected by non-random procedures, into the GIS. Phase II field surveys in seven counties were initiated to generate additional archaeological data, this time from truly probabilistic surveys. Modeling procedures were refined. Preliminary models were generated for the entire state, using Anfinson's (1990:135-166) archaeological resource regions as the regionalization 54 scheme. For some areas, additional models were built using data which are not yet available statewide to test the utility of these data sets. Finally, paleo-environmental data were developed and evaluated for their ability to contribute to the project. Phase 3 of the project involved refining the modeling procedures further. This included adopting the Ecological Classification System subsections (Hanson and Hargrave 1996) as the regionalization scheme and incorporating more sites into the database used to build the models. Modeling was extended to using information about locations surveyed to build models of survey bias. Additional procedures for evaluating model performance were adopted. As a final product of this phase, site probability and survey probability models were combined into composite survey implementation models. These will be important components of the implementation and operational plan, which was also developed during Phase 3. Concurrent with Phase 1 and Phase 2 was the creation of geomorphological maps, for seven river valleys and one ancient glacial lake bed, delineating both paleo-landscapes and their integrity. This mapping was extended to 16 (including portions of) upland quadrangles in Phase 3. Also in Phase 3, these geomorphic maps were used to develop a suitability model to determine the potential "suitable locations" of buried sites in the areas mapped. 2.1.5 Products The primary product of Mn/Model is a series of high resolution, predictive models for pre-1837 archaeological site and survey potential across Minnesota. A number of secondary products were generated, most importantly a single repository of statewide environmental data in 55 GIS format organized by county. Mn/DOT will make the models and the data available on CD-ROM. The final project report is also available in digital format on CD-ROM. Finally, an implementation plan was developed for use by Mn/DOT and coordinating agencies. One other essential product of Mn/Model is the generation of a series of geomorphological maps of seven river valleys, one ancient glacial lake, and 16 (including portions of) upland quadrangles. These maps define the location, age, and integrity of paleo-landscapes when practical. The geomorphology maps do not predict site locations, but rather predict for suitable landscapes to contain in situ archaeological deposits. 2.1.6 Results Site probability models are presented as low, medium, and high probability areas for site presence. Survey probability models are represented as low, medium, and high potential that a landscape is similar to the places with particular environmental characteristics have been surveyed. Portions of the landscape where prehistoric sites are expected not to be located (under water, in mines, on steep slopes) were excluded from these probability classes. Survey implementation models also identify areas where surveys have been inadequate and, consequently, the probability of finding sites is unknown. Models for individual regions of the state predict from 55.5 to 95 percent of known sites. Statewide, 85.5 percent of all known sites are predicted. Regional models classify from 6.4 to 48.7 percent of the landscape into high and medium probability classes. Only 20.6 percent of the entire state is assigned to the high and medium probability classes. 56 Besides providing a scientific, cost effective planning tool, Mn/Model can be used to generate hypotheses of the causal relationships between environmental variables and prehistoric site locations. These relationships can be used to generate theories about spatial settlement patterns across the landscape. 2.1.7 References Allen, M. S., S.W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow (editors) 1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London. Anfinson, S.F. 1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. E Gibbon, pp. 135-166. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology No. 4. Department of Anthropology. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Brandt, R., B.J. Groenewoudt and K.L. Kvamme 1992 An Experiment in Archaeological Site Location: Modeling in the Netherlands using GIS Techniques. World Archaeology 24:268-282. Cassell, M.S., H.D. Mooers, C.A. Dobbs, T. Madigan, M. Covill, J. Berry, and D.A. Birk 1997 An Archaeological Sensitivity Model of Prehistoric and Contact Period Settlement at Camp Ripley, Morrison County, Minnesota. Reports of Investigation No. 397. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis. Dalla Bona, L. 1994 Methodological Considerations. Cultural Heritage Resource Predictive Modelling Project Vol. 4. Centre for Archaeological Resource Prediction, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Dalla Bona, L. and L. Larcombe 1996 Modeling Prehistoric Land Use in Northern Ontario. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 252-271. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 23, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 57 Ebert, J.I. and T.A. Kohler 1988 The Theoretical Basis of Archaeological Predictive Modeling and a Consideration of Appropriate Data-Collection Methods. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method,and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W.J. Judge and L, Sebastian, pp. 97-171. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hanson, D.H. and B.C. Hargrave 1996 Development of a Multilevel Ecological Classification System for the State of Minnesota. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39:75-84. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands. Judge, J. W., and L. Sebastian (editors) 1988 Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application Archaeological Predictive Modeling. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Kohler, T.A. 1988 Predictive Locational Modeling: History and Current Practice. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W. J. Judge and L, Sebastian, pp. 19-59. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Kohler, T.A., and S.C. Parker 1986 Predictive Models for Archaeological Resource Location. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 397-452. Academic Press, New York. Kvamme, K.L. 1986 The Use of Geographic Information Systems for Modeling Archaeological Site Distributions. In Geographic Information Systems in Government, vol. 1, edited by B.K. Opitz, pp. 345-362. A. Deepak Publishing, Hampton. 1992 A Predictive Site Location Model on the High Plains: An Example with an Independent Test. Plains Anthropologist 37:19-40. 1997 Ranters Corner: Bringing the Camps Together: GIS and ED. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 47:1-5. Maschner, H. D. G. (editor) 1996 New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research. Occasional Paper No. 23, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Sebastian, L. and W.J. Judge 1988 Predicting the Past: Correlation, Explanation, and the use of Archaeological Models. In 58 Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W.J. Judge and L, Sebastian, pp.1-18. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Thoms, A.V. 1988 A Survey of Predictive Locational Models: Examples from the Late 1970s and Early 1980s. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W.J. Judge and L, Sebastian, pp. 581-645. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 59 EXCERPT 2.2 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS By G. Joseph Hudak, Allyson Brooks, Curtis M. Hudak, Elizabeth Hobbs, Edwin R. Hajic, and Craig M. Johnson 2.2.1 Introduction With the advent of the new 36CFR800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Minnesota Archaeological Predictive Model (MN/Model) is even more essential as an environmental, cultural resource and transportation planning tool. The new regulations focus on tribal consultation and the integration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the Section 106 process. The regulations also highlight the importance of public participation and emphasize the primary role of the Agency in the Section 106 process. Mn/Model's data layers and subsequent models, derived from the data, provide the ease of visual and tabular information in one format for the purposes of environmental analysis as well as transportation and land use planning. These layers and models are also a means of providing information visually to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Tribal Councils, and the general public. The datasets and models can be used to explain analyses and subsequent decisions when there are competing resources. By providing visual and tabular data in one format the Agency is able to expedite the consultation process with the SHPO/THPO and tribal governments. 60 Mn/Model was completed through a process of inclusion by having representatives from a variety of state and federal agencies as well as tribal preservation staff on a steering committee. This gave the primary users ownership in the methodology used to construct the model. The steering committee process was also employed to discuss the data used to derive the site probability and survey models and the subsequent implementation model. Initial use of Mn/Model, both to determine if inventories are needed and to determine inventory methodology, have been very successful. Where Agency and SHPO archaeologists were previously compelled to rely on their own intuitive reasoning, Mn/Model has provided scientifically testable and justifiable information for decision-making purposes. Mn/Model assists the consultation process by becoming a focus point of discussion, in essence becoming a baseline for the cultural resource analysis process. Its GIS based platform allows it to be a dynamic, rather than static tool, meaning that both the cultural and environmental data layers and its predictive capabilities will only become more refined as it is used and maintained. 2.2.2 Mn/Model Overview Mn/Model is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based statistically-derived model that predicts the most likely location of archaeological sites across Minnesota. The concept behind an archaeological predictive model is the correlation of environmental variables with the locations of known archaeological sites and locational information on where archaeological sites are not found. The underlying assumption is that human behavior is non-random, and therefore past settlements and activity areas are dispersed in predictive patterns across the landscape, 61 primarily near life-sustaining resources. This assumption means that Mn/Model cannot only assume correlations between known site locations and present day environment data, but must also reconstruct prehistoric landscapes. While suitable data were not yet available to develop statewide landscape models, the geomorphological component of Mn/Model examined the potential of deeply buried landscapes across seven river valleys, one ancient glacial lake, and six "upland" areas within a framework of models of landscape evolution. Until recently, Minnesota archaeological managers, contractors and researchers have generally identified archaeological sites that occur on or near the ground surface in their research and planning but failed to consider those that might have been buried or eroded due to geomorphic post-occupational factors. Instead, it is common in most reports and cultural resource management investigations to assume that the post-occupational geomorphological factors were dealt with as a constant. Environmental factors were, more often than not, only considered to affect cultural adaptivity. Mn/Model, through its geomorphological paleolandscape component, incorporates the third and fourth dimensions of time and buried Holocene landscapes/surfaces for areas with higher probabilities for buried cultural resources. This alone is a unique aspect of Mn/Model that has not been previously accomplished by other modeling efforts on this scale. Mn/Model produced other innovations as well. To our knowledge, this was the first attempt to model the distribution of surveyed places in addition to that of archaeological sites. This survey probability model provides a vivid illustration of survey bias. When combined with the site probability model, it allows us to identify portions of the landscape that lack archaeological information. 62 Mn/Model is also the first high-resolution GIS-based model attempted for such a large land area. The challenge of modeling at this scale were met by the development of standards and procedures to insure consistent results throughout the state. These are discussed in this report and are being documented in greater detail in a technical manual that is in preparation. Mn/DOT's attention to documenting Mn/Model will insure both that the project can survive staffing changes and that other organizations can learn from or even adopt Mn/Model methods for their own modeling projects. Mn/DOT assembled an interdisciplinary team of researchers that included geographers, archaeologists, geomorphologists, statisticians, and paleo-climatologists for the Mn/Model project. The combined research activities of this team have enhanced our knowledge of the last several thousand years. While project members in all of the participating disciplines have benefited immensely, archaeologists were forced to reevaluate protocols, standards, and techniques employed in site modeling, as well as accurate site recording and evaluation. In our opinion, this alone will prove to be most valuable to the future archaeological researcher. 2.2.3 Archaeological Resource Management Prior to the development of Mn/Model, Mn/DOT cultural resource managers had no means of assessing where archaeological survey efforts should be focused. More often than not, exhaustive inventory surveys were conducted because of limited knowledge of the project area. Surveys were often conducted within environments that had little to no potential to contain cultural remains. Survey designs and agency decisions were based on the use of "biased" expert 63 system or intuitive models. Mn/Model is now used to assist Mn/DOT during all phases of project planning and review. During the scoping and pre-design phase it helps planners determine which areas could be the most costly for Mn/DOT in terms of having the highest potential for containing archaeological sites. The model also allows Mn/DOT cultural resource staff, the State Archaeologist (OSA), and the SHPO/THPO to determine project Areas of Potential Effects (APE) and survey needs and requirements. With the implementation of Mn/Model, surveys will be greatly focused, and therefore, expedited. Sharing this scientifically testable process programmatically between agencies will streamline project reviews without sacrificing good science. Further, if a member of the general public questions the need for a survey, Mn/DOT, OSA, and the SHPO/THPO will be able to show that their decisions were based on a scientifically-based model. The most important aspect of Mn/Model in terms of long term cultural resource management is that it is not person specific. Agency staff can change through time without affecting Mn/Model's performance. Mn/Model will only be enhanced as more projects are completed and new data are included. Staff cannot affect the outcome of Mn/Model; only the quality of the data entered into the model will affect its ability to perform satisfactorily. 2.2.4 Change of Process Approach Mn/Model has developed a planning approach to predicting surface archaeological sites and the ability to identify deeply buried landscapes suitable for containing archaeological materials. This has presented a number of challenges. 64 Mn/Model has made explicit the spatial biases in past archaeological surveys. The next challenge for archaeologists is to use this information to extend our knowledge of previously unsurveyed landscapes without neglecting areas predicted as having high or medium site potential. Some survey in low probability areas will also be required to adequately test Mn/Model. Otherwise, the model becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This will require efficient and effective field survey designs based on the survey implementation model. Mn/Model's high resolution and statewide coverage facilitates the testing of the site location model on a large-scale. Such testing cannot be easily done with intuitive or expert models because of the need for precisely delimiting areas of differing archaeological potential over broad areas. Buried archaeological sites, especially older ones, do not necessarily occur in easily predictable landscape situations. They tend to be exceptional and restricted to environments that are not usually identified in a less than complete reconstruction of the paleolandscape. This validates the use of a geoarchaeological, or landscape (hillslope)-evolution, model such as the one set up within Mn/Model. Mn/Model clearly has established that many broad-scaled archaeological endeavors should not be undertaken without a comprehensive understanding of the geomorphic framework and implications it has for the interpretation of the prehistoric cultural record. Moreover, since older archaeological sites may occur on deeply buried landscapes, they are testable only on a limited basis by remote sensing, coring, or backhoe trenching. Mn/Model has forced the archaeological profession to review protocols for exploring landscapes that have rarely been explored in a statistically valid manner in the past. 65 2.2.5 Mn/Model Enhancements The Mn/Model GIS provides a strong base for future enhancements. These include building GIS applications that access and interpret the Mn/Model GIS data, improving and adding to the GIS data, and refining the Mn/Model modeling process to make it easier for Mn/DOT to use in the future. In fact, enhancements to Mn/Model began even before the release of Mn/Model itself. The first funded enhancement was a prototype cost path analysis application for cultural resources and other environmental issues that are a factor in the NEPA process. The cost path analysis allows Mn/DOT pre-design engineers, archaeologists, and wetlands specialists to compare alternative corridor alignments. The application generates an optimum alignment based upon the calculation of the least costly or disruptive path given the costs being modeled. It also estimates and compare the costs of alignments entered by the user. The intent is to provide an advisory tool for environmental, land use, and transportation planners. Factors included in this decision-making process include the potential for archaeological, wetland, and other environmental impacts. This prototype has been implemented for only three counties. It can be extended in the future by acquiring the necessary data. If Mn/DOT decides to adopt this application, it could later be expanded by adding data and functionality to address other Mn/DOT needs, such as investment management, environmental justice (e.g. demographics, social analysis), traffic counts, pavement management, accident data, or endangered species. While Mn/Model was being developed in the UNIX environment, Mn/DOT changed its standard GIS platform to Windows NT. So that Mn/DOT can continue updating data and 66 models, the ARC/INFO AMLs and S-Plus scripts developed for the project were translated so that they run in the NT, rather than UNIX, versions of the respective software packages. In the process, AMLs were combined, edited, and generally made more efficient. New AMLs were written to perform maintenance and updating activities. A formal process model and database design are being developed and should be completed by summer, 2002. These were never part of the original scope, and both the process and database developed over the course of the project. The result was rather complex. For Mn/DOT staff and consultants to replicate and improve the process in the future, they will need a formal model of the original process with which to work. Moreover, developing the process model will help pinpoint inefficiencies and aid the development of better procedures. A formal database model can likewise result in a more compact and systematic database that is better adaptable to other projects. Both will make any future modeling more efficient. They will be accompanied by a detailed User Manual to facilitate knowledge transfer between the original team and future modelers. With a process model, database design, and NT macros as a foundation, it will be possible to more completely automate and integrate many of the Mn/Model functions. This automation and integration will improve the efficiency and accuracy of future modeling efforts, and make it easier for future users (Mn/DOT staff or consultants) to learn the procedures. It will not be possible, however, to develop one easy application that runs the process from start to finish. There will always be many points where user intervention is required to make expert decisions regarding the quality and nature of the intermediate results obtained. Both the archaeological predictive models produced by Mn/Model and the results of any 67 future analyses or applications will be improved by keeping the Mn/Model GIS data current. Already, the digital elevation models (DEMs) have been updated by replacing the 1:250,000 scale data used in some locations with the newer 1:24,000 scale data that were not available when Mn/Model was developed. Banded DEMs were also replaced. These data are critical to the quality of the models and are also important for planning applications. Moreover, with the digital geomorphology data now available, environmental data for Mn/Model will be at a scale of 1:100,000 or better, the only exception being Marschner's (1974) vegetation map. Accurate and frequently updated archaeological data are important for planners to estimate cultural resource impacts and costs. SHPO now provides Mn/DOT with their archaeological site inventory on a regular basis. Mn/DOT has performed extensive spatial quality control on the data. Large numbers of site coordinate errors have been identified. These are being corrected and new procedures for locating sites within the GIS will be adopted. If funding permits, this may include digitizing site boundaries. Correcting archaeological site coordinates should have a significant effect on the models, by eliminating a large random component to the database. Digitizing site boundaries, by increasing the number of 30 meter cells known to be occupied by archaeological sites, will effectively increase the number of "site present" locations available for analysis. This should put the modeling efforts on a stronger statistical foundation and improve model precision. From a planning perspective, efforts should be made to enhance Mn/Model in areas where major improvements to the State's transportation network are planned. One of these statewide initiatives is the replacement of the state's aging bridge system. Bridge replacements, with their associated approach realignments and often deep excavations for piers, abutments, and 68 channel relocations, are historically more expensive when cultural resources are encountered within project construction limits. This is generally true because they usually include deeply buried remains, complex geomorphological landscape situations, and often older cultural material deemed more significant in terms of Research Design development and implementation. As previously stated, it is important to understand landscape or hillslope evolution before undertaking many large scale programs. Mn/Model's ability to support bridge projects would be greatly enhanced with 1:24,000 scale (or better) geomorphic coverage of additional river valleys and streams. Mn/Model work to date has focused on valleys of large, high order rivers. Intermediate and low order (small) streams may or may not have patterns of aggradation or erosion similar to the larger river valleys, but in either case, they will certainly be related to the records of the higher order streams. Similarly, the record of the lowest order streams can be related to the type and durations of dominant geomorphic processes affecting hillslopes. Eventually, the entire stream network of the state can be integrated into several models covering the largest drainage basins (e.g. Mississippi River, Red River), based on integrated models of depositional subsystems, from drainage divides through small streams to major rivers. Stream order would be a relatively simple addition to the overall effectiveness of Mn/Model since the landform sediment assemblage mapping codes are already set up to handle stream orders. Upland drainages also need closer scrutiny to establish the contemporary differences in sedimentation and erosion between upland drainage ways and major valleys. Biomantles, colluvial mantles, and human-modified landscapes also promise to be rewarding if evaluated relative to their impacts on cultural deposits. This could be undertaken as 69 part of other enhancement studies. The presence or absence of biomantles, and their distribution relative to hillslope component, age, and physiographic region of the state could provide insight on the interpretation of the integrity and 'significance' of both buried and surface prehistoric cultural material. Site integrity is a major issue in Section 106 projects and the understanding of biomantles might lead to widespread re-thinking of how prehistoric archaeological sites, particularly the ubiquitous light lithic scatter, are evaluated for 'significance'. Another significant enhancement would be the systematic research of the effects of shoreline (including past and present wetlands) processes on cultural deposits - water elevation changes of the Holocene, and history of terrace and shoreline development within the many different temporal and spatial ecosystems and physiographic regions. In addition, the identification of smaller exposed lakebeds should also be a priority, as large numbers of Minnesota lakes have been drained for agriculture. 2.2.6 Conclusion In conclusion, Mn/Model is an active, ongoing project. Better archaeological predictive models can and will be developed on the basis of better data and further refinement of the modeling procedures. These can be organized at four levels of effort. ! At the first level, new models developed using existing procedures and improved elevation and archaeological data will undoubtedly be better than the originals, at least in some parts of the state. A redefinition of what constitutes a steep slope would help eliminate many areas too steep to survey or very unlikely to contain cultural resources. 70 This would require a minimal level of effort because no additional programming would be required. ! At the second level, new data or new classifications of existing data can be added to improve the models. The DNR 1:100,000 scale geomorphology data and the Mn/Model 1:24,000 scale geomorphology data, for example, were not completed in time to be used in Phase 3 statistical modeling. These are now ready to contribute to model results. Previously unused National Wetlands Inventory point and line data could be added to increase information about wetland distributions. The National Wetlands Inventory classification used for modeling could also be refined to increase the number of classes from four (wetlands, rivers, lakes, and uplands) to include additional features such as flats, bars, rocky shores, streambeds, and even distinctions between the shallow (near shore) and deep parts of lakes. This would require additional programming to call the new or reclassified data for use in the modeling procedures. ! At the third level, new procedures can be developed. For example, models could potentially be improved by a better understanding of the expected density of archaeological resources throughout the state. However, first a model of site density must be developed that incorporates information about the density of archaeological sites based on valid, probabilistic sampling of the landscape. A priori probabilities of finding sites in various zones of archaeological potential based on existing Mn/Model surveys and new probabilistic ones would provide an idea of the relative occurrence of sites across the landscape. This model could then be incorporated into the development of the archaeological predictive model. Likewise, prehistoric landscape models based on 71 geomorphologic and other data could be developed. Even if these models indicate no more than former surface hydrology, their use for deriving variables should greatly help the prediction of older archaeological sites, Such enhancements would require a high level of effort, because they would require the development and programming of new modeling procedures. ! At the fourth level, additional information in the archaeological database can be used to further our understanding of the distribution of archaeological sites across the landscape. Although Mn/Model takes numerous biophysical variables into consideration in model construction, it does not consider social factors. Despite the fact that social factors are difficult to incorporate into model building, due to the need to establish contemporaneity between sites, concepts like central place settlements (ceremonial centers, trade centers, large base camps) can be used without tight chronological controls. Model construction can also incorporate various indicators of site activity that may prove useful in model interpretation. For example, the dichotomy between sites containing pottery and those that do not appears to tap into a basic difference in the way sites are distributed over the landscape, as the results of Mn/Model and other modeling efforts suggest. This in turn seems to be related to the degree of sedentism reflected in these sites, although temporal differences may be involved to a lesser degree. Other indicators could be relied on that make distinctions between the amount of activity (i.e. variety and intensity) reflected at sites. These distinctions are useful in making decisions about the significance of sites and whether they are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If modeling could incorporate this information, it would go one step beyond a model based 72 solely on site presence or absence. Even without these enhancements, Mn/Model has met and exceeded its original goals. The primary objective of Mn/Model as a planning tool was to develop a product that would allow cultural resource managers to make scientifically based decisions that could then be tested in the field. A secondary product of Mn/Model is the ability of the system to function as an environmental planning tool for the purposes of NEPA. It permits cultural resource managers and environmental planners a means of assessing a project's impacts to a variety of resources. Finally, the development of Mn/Model brought together a variety of agencies and tribal preservation staff working in coordination towards a common goal. The end result of the endeavor is greater communication between agencies, an expedited consultation process, and a scientific basis for Section 106 and NEPA analysis. 2.2.7 References Marschner, F. J. 1974 The Original Vegetation of Minnesota. Compiled from U.S. General Land Office Survey notes. North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 73 3 ARIZONA'S CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY 3.1 Introduction The AZSITE Consortium is a partnership between the Arizona State Museum (ASM), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State University (ASU) and the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA). The Consortium was created to facilitate the integration and shared management of cultural resource information for the state of Arizona. It presently exists in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement signed in 1995 by the four partner institutions. This agreement is currently being redrafted as an intergovernmental service agreement between the first three state institutions, with an additional document that binds MNA with this agreement as a private nonprofit agency. According to the terms of these documents, the Consortium partners collaborate to manage, maintain, develop and control access to the AZSITE database system and to secure funding for these activities through external grant efforts and through data use fees. Although still under development, the AZSITE Consortium is the most complete database for archaeological and historical sites in the state of Arizona. The formation of the AZSITE Consortium will be discussed below, along with several technical aspects, including the technology used for data management, security features of the database and the benefits to the user public. Moreover, the policies adopted by AZSITE Consortium regarding tribal lands, rights to the data and data access are discussed, as are planning and maintenance operations. The information presented herein has been excerpted from the web site of the Arizona 74 Cultural Resource Inventory, located at 2002. 3.2 Development of AZSITE Consortium For decades, the four members of the AZSITE Consortiumœthe Arizona State Museum, the Arizona State University Department of Anthropology, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the State Historic Preservation Officeœhave archived and managed information about archaeological and historic sites, and about archaeological surveys within the State of Arizona. This always has included information about sites on federal, state, tribal, municipal, and private land. These members have made this information available to bona fide archaeologists and cultural resource managers, under their institutional policies and applicable State and Federal statutes. This information has been maintained and made available at the member institutions for the two related goals of preserving archaeological and historic resources and using these resources to gain a better understanding of the human past. Historically, the users of this information have regularly included archaeologists and historians from federal, state and local government; private cultural resource management agencies; representatives of tribal cultural resource offices; and trained archaeologist and historian researchers. The site and survey information was originally collected and archived on paper and photographic media. In the last few decades, a subset of this information has been put into digital format at all the member institutions to improve their abilities to properly manage and more effectively use this information. Nevertheless, archiving archaeological and historic site 75 data at four (and even more) institutions and in different data formats led to inevitable overlapping records, erroneously recorded sites, and other errors. It also made the effective use of the four data sets very difficult for bona fide users. In 1995, the four member institutions entered into a formal agreement to share in a single database the information about archaeological and historic sites and surveys previously archived at each locale, in order to better achieve the purposes for which this information was originally collected and maintained. This led to the formation of the AZSITE Consortium. The data sharing agreement involved information already archived by (or being submitted for archiving to) the Consortium members in digital data formats already being used for managing that information. During the development of a master database to incorporate all participants' data, the Consortium has held regular meetings to solicit input from potential users in federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies. Meeting participants have raised concerns about security, access, quality, and intellectual property rights for this information. All of these concerns have been addressed by the Consortium during the development of the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory over the past four years and many have been solved to the satisfaction of all concerned. 3.3 AZSITE Database The AZSITE database is a consolidated informational network of recorded archaeological sites, historic properties, districts, and inventory surveys within the state of Arizona. It is designed to reduce the amount of research time required for Class 1 Surveys and 76 to provide a database for research projects. The pilot database currently holds 60,000 records on sites and historic properties, and about 4,000 records of surveys. It consists of records from the ASM (including state, county, municipal and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records), ASU, SHPO, MNA and National Forest databases. Most of the site and several hundred--survey records are georeferenced in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Hot links to photos and sites have been identified as desirable features, but have not yet been implemented. Once the database is online and up to date, efforts will be made to add these features to the system. The pilot adopted the component/age classifications used on the current ASM site card. This system provides age horizons that are divorced from cultural and spatial contexts and are thus applicable state-wide. Researchers are currently expanding this list to accommodate local phase names. This is being done in a manner that allows local phase names to be referenced to the broader time horizons. A procedure for submitting additions will be set up and a committee of concerned archaeologists will be elected to review the current system and recommend changes. The pilot has incorporated the bibliographic reference numbers currently in use by ASM and SHPO; in both cases, these are sequential numbers assigned when a report record is entered into a computer file. A new format has been adopted for bibliographic data that is similar to the National Archaeological Database (NADB) bibliographic format. Future integration is anticipated with the Consortium of Arizona Museum Archives and Libraries, made up of ASM, MNA, the Pueblo Grande Museum and the Heard Museum. The Consortium is developing a project to index Arizona "gray literature" (among many other documents) in a standard Machine 77 Readable Code (MARC) format. This would allow the assignment of Library of Congress catalog numbers and these numbers would be added to the database. The reports would then be searchable by author or by subject. 3.4 AZSITE Data Management and Security AZSITE is primarily an accessibility tool and should not be regarded as an archival system. The ultimate protection for the data will be the diligent management of records by the agencies responsible for the various portions of the database. There will be 3 or 4 replicated servers, each with a full set of data, and each with a regular tape backup regime. While a transaction log is kept as a record of updates, inserts and deletions to the database, it is unlikely that AZSITE will have the resources to keep a paper inventory of site forms and correction logs. It will remain the responsibility of the managing agencies to keep a record of all submissions and changes they have authorized. Limited technical resources and, in some cases, failure to maintain rigorous standards, have resulted in many site records with no, or poor quality, information regarding provenance and basic descriptive attributes. For site locations, GIS points were generated from coordinates recorded "as is" from the site forms. After displaying the database, the most obvious errors resulting from reversed northings and eastings, missing decimal places or mixed Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zones were corrected. The database will be available only to authorized users. Just as all agencies that keep paper records of site data control the access to those files, the AZSITE database will have 78 controlled access to the computerized records. This will be accomplished through a system of assigning login accounts and passwords to authorized users. The Consortium may restrict access to data according to the policies set by those responsible for the information where such restrictions are in the best interests of the archaeological resources. Intellectual rights over the data themselves will be neither claimed nor determined by the Consortium; participating institutions, however, that have contributed data to AZSITE may retain claims to intellectual rights to that information. 3.5 AZSITE's Database Design 3.5.1 Introduction The AZSITE database consists of three spatial data layers and their associated attributes, as follows: (a) Sites - archaeological sites and historic properties (b) Projects - surveys, inventories and excavation research. (c) Districts - historic districts and other aggregative units that group sites. Each of these layers has a main data table and an associated spatial table (e.g., sitesgis) for managing the spatial information. Additional information is contained in a series of child tables to allow repetition of certain fields, such as features, diagnostic artifacts, components, national register status, etc. Many attributes, such as feature types and component names, are controlled by domain authority tables to force data comparability. Details on individual tables, their relationships and field contents may be browsed through additional links. 79 3.5.2 System Design The database is stored in MS SQL Server, a relational database management system. The spatial data are stored in the same database using the Environmental Systems Research Institute‘s (ESRI) Spatial Database Engine (SDE), client-server system for GIS. The advantage of this design is that it supports large numbers of users over remote network connections. It also frees the AZSITE Consortium and other users of the system to develop customized client access tools that are less constrained by the specific hardware and software configuration of the data storage. All communication with the database is based on standardized protocols, such as SQL and ESRI's SDE programming interface. The database is managed as a replicated system, in which one master copy is maintained and replicated on a daily basis to a read-only copy. To separate management activity from data access, licensed users are granted access to the read-only copy. This copy does not contain data from tribal lands that have not consented to its access over the Internet. 3.5.3 Data Entry and Maintenance Data are entered into the AZSITE system through a free-standing entry application that produces a facsimile of the GIS and data table structure of AZSITE. Sets of data pass through a review process and are ultimately submitted to AZSITE for entry into the main system. A final screen for integrity errors is performed and the data are loaded into AZSITE. At this point, the final AZSITE and azproj numbers are assigned. Concordance is maintained with all previously assigned site numbers and a logfile is archived. Subsequent modifications are done via hand 80 entry. 3.5.4 Other GIS Data While not part of the AZSITE database, other spatial data layers are available to AZSITE users through data-sharing partnerships with other agencies and projects. This include the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) project at the Center for Environmental Studies, ASU; The Arizona Land Resource Information System at the Arizona State Land Department. Metadata and access information for all the spatial data available though Center for Environmental Studies may be found at the CAP LTER data website, located at 3.6 AZSITE Database Features Accessible to the User Public Survey and site searches currently involve manual sifting through paper copies of survey reports, maps and site cards, as well as querying the limited databases at several geographically distant recording agencies. With the AZSITE database, users will be able to query the database and research a geographical area from a computer terminal. The database will have as complete a list as possible of all the archaeological sites and surveys within the State of Arizona. This saves time and allows more accurate and complete research of each project area. Initially, computer terminals will be available at four points around the state at ASM, SHPO, ASU and MNA. Internet web access is under development. With the establishment of a wide area network, it will be possible to do "remote" logins. All of these methods can be controlled to 81 prevent unauthorized use. The database will provide location information on surveys conducted and archaeological sites recorded in any area specified within the State of Arizona. It will provide researchers with survey and site numbers, the archaeological data recorded on each site, and report references related to each survey number, but will not allow users to view each report in its entirety. It will tell investigators what surveys have been done in the specified project area and whether any recorded archaeological sites will be affected by a particular proposed surface alteration. Users will continue to submit new data reports to the agencies they currently submit to. Site and survey descriptions will be submitted in electronic form in AZSITE format. A standalone version of the AZSITE database has been created and is available free of charge for the creation of AZSITE datasets. This database will be reviewed by the appropriate land managing agency and then forwarded to AZSITE for insertion into the main database. The insertions are logged and the final AZSITE numbers assigned to the sites are written back to the standalone copy for the records of submitter. Plans are being developed to provide training for use of the AZSITE database. The extent of training that can be developed is a function of funds available. Grant monies will be sought to implement the system and to provide for training support. Ongoing training and support for a system once it is implemented will be included in user fees. As with all new computer applications, there will be on-line help. Anyone generally familiar with relational database applications, such as ACCESS or Paradox, will find the database interface very familiar. 82 3.7 AZSITE‘S Policy for Web Access and Direct Access 3.7.1 Web Access Web access requires only a standard desktop web browser to view limited quantities of data at a time. The following types of users may receive user accounts and passwords for Web access: (a) State and Federal Agencies: Agency cultural resource managers and tribal governments. (b) Certified Local Governments (CLG) (National Park Service Certified): i. Cultural Preservation Office staff working under the direction of the City or County Cultural Preservation Officer who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Standards; ii. CLG Commissioners who meet Secretary of Interior's Professional Standards. (c) Counties and other Municipal Governments: Historic preservation staff/officers who meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards and are acting for the municipality in a historic preservation program capacity. (d) Consulting Firms who are carrying out historic preservation activities: Cultural resource staff who individually meet or are working under the direct supervision of a company official who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Standards. 83 (e) Researchers: University or College Professors who meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards and students working directly under the direction of a University or College Professor. 3.7.2 Direct Access Direct access to the AZSITE database requires that users have an SDE-enabled application, such as ESRI's ArcView or ArcInfo, as well as MS ACCESS 2000 installed. It permits downloading of large quantities of data and is available to the following types of users, with a formal contractual agreement: (a) State and Federal Agencies, Tribal Governments (b) Certified Local Governments (National Park Service Certified) (c) Counties and other Municipal Governments. 3.8 Policy for Data about Archaeological and Historical Sites on Tribal Lands and the AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory . 3.8.1 Policy Background One set of concerns that has not yet been resolved involves information about archaeological and historic sites and surveys on tribal lands, that was archived and managed by Consortium member institutions prior to the formation of the AZSITE Consortium. Specifically, these concerns involve who should have access to these data, who should decide questions of access, and where and in what ways these data should be managed. Further, information about 84 tribal sites and surveys have differing kinds of importance for different constituencies. For example, this information includes: (a) Information maintained and augmented, and often compiled, through the time and effort of the staffs of the institution/agency where they were originally archived; (b) Information needed by the State Historic Preservation Office to fulfill statutory obligations; (c) Information comprising the Cultural Heritage of Native American Tribes. (d) Information collection paid for and/or permitted by federal (i.e., non-tribal) agencies; and (e) Research data for scientists studying the human past. Furthermore, under Federal and State laws this information is deemed worthy of protection because it comprises the legacy of the human past important to all people. Several of these different constituencies have made at least informal claims of intellectual property rights over this information. These concerns have been the topic of numerous discussions between the Consortium members, representatives of government agencies, tribal representatives, and other interested parties. Given the remaining concerns about sites and surveys on tribal lands, the AZSITE Consortium felt it is wise to issue a policy statement outlining the consensus arrived at after several years of discussing this issue. In establishing a policy toward information from archaeological and historic sites and surveys on tribal lands, the AZSITE Consortium has followed several guiding principles. The AZSITE Consortium is fundamentally an agreement and mechanism for sharing data among the member institutions/agency and disseminating it to relevant users (i.e., the AZSITE Cultural 85 Resources Inventory). Hence, it does not have basis, legal or otherwise, for deciding conflicting claims of intellectual hegemony over information contributed by the consortium members. Such claims are most appropriately settled at the level of the particular member institution or agency which originally archived and managed relevant data often for decades. Nevertheless, the AZSITE Consortium has come to a consensus agreement that it is to the benefit of land managers, users, and data contributors if the information made available in the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory is, to the extent possible, present with the common consent of the contributors and of those responsible for the land on which the relevant sites are located. The AZSITE Consortium does not have the legal authority to enforce cultural resource statutes or compel AZSITE users to comply with such statutes. However, it can prevent access to the Cultural Resources Inventory to any users misusing the information from the inventory in violation of a signed user agreement, or of any applicable statutes, or in contravention of the purposes for which the information was compiled and shared by the member institutions/agency. The AZSITE Consortium members contributed information from their own institutions/agency in good faith, for the benefit of the broader user constituency, often at considerable expense, and with the expectation that their own access to these same data would not be restricted. 3.8.2 Policy Text (a) With express, official tribal permission, the AZSITE Consortium will manage and make available to approved AZSITE users information about archaeological and historic properties on tribal land in Arizona. The AZSITE Consortium is highly concerned for the preservation of all cultural resources and will manage any information about tribal 86 sites with the same care that it affords information about archaeological and historic places on other lands. The AZSITE Consortium is not currently able to manage or make available such site information from tribal lands in a manner different from other site information. 1. Without express, official tribal permission, the AZSITE Consortium will not make available to AZSITE users via the AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory information about sites on tribal lands. (b) Currently, for technological and security reasons, all pre-existing (i.e., "legacy") data on historic and archaeological sites contributed by members of the AZSITE Consortium has been (and is still being) loaded into a master holding database for checking and data cleaning prior to making it available in the AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory. Any such pre-existing information about historic and archaeological properties on tribal lands will not be transferred to the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory without express, official tribal approval. Nor will it be deleted from this holding database without an agreement to do so between the tribe and the contributing institution or agency. 1. The AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory comprises shared information contributed by AZSITE Consortium members, and all AZSITE Consortium institutions potentially have access to the master holding database. Access to any cultural resource information maintained internally by a member institution is governed by the policies of that institution and all applicable state and federal statutes. Hence, each AZSITE Consortium member will not release information in the holding database contributed by other member institutions, to the extent 87 that it can be determined, about archaeological and historic sites on tribal lands without the express permission of the source institution or agency. (c) Because a single, central database affords greater security and permits more effective management and preservation of cultural resources, the AZSITE Consortium encourages Arizona tribes to contribute information on historic and archaeological properties to the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory. For tribes who may choose to manage such information themselves, the current standards and data structures of the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory are open and freely available. 1. However, it is not the responsibility of the AZSITE Consortium to ensure compatibility between the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory and cultural resources data sets independently maintained by tribes or other institutions. Nor is it the responsibility of the AZSITE Consortium to ensure that data not contributed to the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory is made available to local, state, or federal agencies responsible for compliance with statues and regulations pertaining to cultural resource management. 3.9 The AZSITE Database as of 05/31/2002 As of 05/31/2002, AZSITE contains 80448 cultural resource records and 11242 cultural resource inventories. Data are being corrected and added at the rate of over 100 resources and 100 inventory records a month. All Cultural Resources contained in AZSITE have been converted to polygon form, 88 based on the recorded site dimensions or boundaries supplied by the recorders. Those sites without recorded dimensions have been buffered to a default size of 5mX5m. The actual boundaries of these sites are being updated as information is submitted by cultural resource management (CRM) agencies. Linear Sites have been buffered to 10 m wide unless otherwise specified. Linear project areas have been buffered to 40 m wide. 3.9.1 Data in AZSITE (a) All records that were in existing databases at ASM, MNA, SHPO and ASU have been converted and uploaded. In some cases, data were lost during the conversion, but this is being corrected. (b) All new incoming data to ASM from contract surveys dated after June 1997 are being entered directly into AZSITE. Most of the data recorded in 2001 are already available for online queries. ASM Legacy records The ASM legacy records consists of the following: (a) Approximately 2800 cultural resources and over 1000 inventories within 1 km of Arizona's Interstates. (b) Cultural resource records north of Phoenix. (c) Most cultural resources and inventories along the Tucson to Phoenix I-10 Corridor including the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan area. (d) Most of the cultural resources and inventories in Pima County. (e) Most inventories east of Tucson in the Safford and Sierra Vista vicinity. 89 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Legacy records Most Cultural Resources from all BLM offices have been recorded. Some attribute information is missing, but is being updated regularly. Cultural resource inventories are being added weekly. 3.9.2 Data Not Available in AZSITE and Known Problems Data that are within the legally defined boundaries of any tribal lands are not available through AZSITE. Many of ASM Legacy inventory records west of the Tucson to Phoenix I-10 Corridor and north of Phoenix are also not available. Several of the linear sites stored in the Old ASM Prime system uploaded in error as polygons. These cannot be missed, however, because they just look wrong. They show up as a elongated polygons stretching across half the state in some cases. There are currently two map datums that AZSITE staff are dealing with. Unfortunately some of the data has been loaded in NAD83 and some in NAD27. Efforts continue to get everything in with the NAD27 data. Those data loaded under the NAD83 datum will appear to be about 70 meters south of where they are supposed to be, but this is being worked on. The US Geological Survey (USGS) has decided to use NAD83 for their default datum. All new maps will be created using this datum. AZSITE will convert data to NAD83 when the time is right to do so. There are a lot of other gaps, but AZSITE is now the most complete, comprehensive Arizona Cultural Resource and Inventory database. 90 3.10 AZSITE Funding Plan With the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory on the brink of beginning a public evaluation and use phase, planning is needed for the long-term maintenance and development of the system. Previously, it had been decided to support the system through a mix of user fees, grants, and other sources. Of these, user fees most appropriately should go towards maintenance and improvement of the core components of the AZSITE system. Even though rough estimates of possible user fee income can be made, based on data from ASM, since this is a new service for the state caution is needed in budgetary planning based on fee income. Hence, a plan is proposed to fund a series of core system components in order of priority as fees are collected. AZSITE funding priorities are initially divided into two categories: a suite of items that are essential to the successful operation of the AZSITE Cultural Resources Inventory and a second group of items that are needed for the longer-term maintenance and improvement of the system especially in terms of data quality and ease of user access. Within each category, items are ranked in order of funding importance. It has been proposed that each item be funded only after the funding of all higher priority items. In this way, AZSITE staff can ensure that available user fees go to support the most essential components, while maintaining the possibility of funding longer-term needs. 91 4 AN ANALYSIS OF PHASE I SURVEYS 4.1 Introduction For several decades, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) allocated substantial funding to ascertain the location, extent, and significance of archaeological phenomena that would be affected by ground-disturbing undertakings. As archaeological survey data accumulated from such Phase I studies, however, questions arose regarding their usefulness for ODOT project-planning processes, particularly in settings involving transportation projects in their preliminary phases of development. This report presents an analysis of information about Phase I pedestrian surveys that were conducted under the auspices of ODOT, either by ODOT personnel or contractors, between 1974-2001. The Project Database Description section summarizes administrative, pre-survey, survey project, and survey design characteristics of 270 Phase I surveys to determine whether current approaches to Phase I archaeological survey provide the information needed for ODOT management and planning. The Site Database Description section presents similar sets of information for 5,424 sites (including Isolated Finds) that were discovered by the 270 Phase I surveys. Furthermore, in order to provide a foundation for a Stage I statewide predictive modeling study, a sample of sites from the Site Database was drawn based on whether a site was accompanied by —corrected“ UTM coordinates which became available as a consequence of an ODOT-funded re-analysis performed by SHPO personnel. A total of 3,910 sites 92 (or, 72.2% of the total number of sites analyzed), representing 118 Phase I survey projects (or, 43.7% of the total number of projects analyzed), met this criterion and formed the Modeling Sample Site Database (or, Modeling Database). The report also contains a review of prior predictive models and proposes recommendations to correct their theoretical and methodological shortcomings. Appendices A and B are catalogs of the Phase I survey reports that were involved in this project. Appendix C contains information about the nature and scale of coverage of downloadable files depicting landcover (C.1), soil (C.2), and glacial geology (C.3) for the counties that are entailed in the predictive modeling study (ODOT 10302). In evaluating the factors that affect the design and execution of Phase I archaeological survey, our study was constrained by several factors. First, we believed it was crucial to honor the observations and interpretations rendered by archaeological surveyors, thereby minimizing the extent of post-hoc re-interpretations of primary data. Execution of this research philosophy meant that both the Survey Project Databases and Site Databases contained a large number of categories, many of which overlapped, were idiosyncratic, or investigator dependent. In only a few cases, did we feel the necessity to develop units of analysis to overcome —under-reporting“ problems. For instance, we coined the term —negative glacial feature“ to capture information about unspecified depressions in a glacial landscape. Second, we thought it would have been useful to track trends in survey costs and the extent to which recommendations for additional work were followed. Data pertaining to these variables were unavailable, lamentably. Third, some 93 data were compiled but were not very useful in assessing the effectiveness of Phase I surveys. For instance, because of methodological inconsistencies, such as determining the threshold artifact density that was used to combine isolated artifacts into an artifact scatter, we could not determine whether Phase I surveys are at all useful in addressing persistent problems or controversies in Ohio prehistory. Also, because of low frequency of occurrence and inconsistencies in designating landforms, we have no basis to offer recommendations regarding the use and cost-effectiveness of geomorphological and geoarchaeological techniques or the applicability of remote sensing technologies (e.g., GPR [ground-penetrating radar]) to Phase I surveys. Moreover, because of these and other problems, we think that there is compelling evidence to warrant the establishment of statewide standardized discovery and characterization protocols based on an —e- survey“ (electronic survey) approach. In fact, the recommendations we propose should enable Phase I surveys to contribute to ODOT management strategies as well as advance the knowledge base and interpretive potential of Ohio‘s surface archaeological record. 94 4.2 Project and Database Variable Descriptions For the purposes of this study, a Phase I report is defined as any survey project report that describes the procedures and techniques that led to the initial discovery of an archaeological site (including isolated finds). The term —site“ refers to any archaeological phenomenon encountered during a Phase I survey that was assigned a number by the Ohio SHPO (e.g., isolated find, lithic scatter, village, etc.). Of 425 reports obtained from ODOT, 270 Phase I survey project reports were analyzed by University of Cincinnati research staff. This database excludes information contained in reports that were literature reviews, Phase II (testing) projects, Phase III (excavation) projects, historic remains, and non-ODOT related studies (e.g., Forest Service, etc.). The following is a description of the variables recorded with the Project Database. The —ODOT Number“ variable was used to record the reference number assigned to each report by the Ohio Department of Transportation for their cataloging purposes (Appendix A). This catalog number was recorded so that analyzed reports could be relocated and referred to after they had been returned to ODOT. The —ODOT Number“ variable was left blank if reports had not yet been assigned an ODOT catalog number at the time of our analysis. Each report was assigned a unique University of Cincinnati project number designated by the —UC Number“ variable (Appendix B). This variable aids in referencing specific sites discovered by particular Phase I survey projects. Gaps in the sequence of UC numbers mean that reports that were originally assigned a number were later 95 excluded from further analysis because they lacked information relevant to the scope of the study. The county or counties where each survey was conducted was recorded with the —County“ variable. This variable was used for determining the distribution of Phase I surveys across Ohio. The name of the firm, institution, or agency that conducted a PI survey was recorded in the —Organization“ variable. If the survey was conducted in-house, ODOT was entered for the organization name. A wide variety of institutions was recorded, including federal and state agencies, universities, independent cultural resource management companies, and individual consultants. The —Year of Project“ variable refers to the year when the Phase I report was submitted to ODOT. Generally, this information was found on the front cover of the project reports. This variable provided information to assess annual trends in survey activity. The setting in which the Phase I survey was conducted was recorded with the —Project Venue“ variable. Industrial, Metropolitan, Suburban, and Rural categories were used to describe the setting of each project‘s survey area. Although larger survey areas could be described with a variety of settings, only the setting that best described the bulk of the survey area was recorded. 96 The —Previously Recorded Sites“ variable recorded the number of prehistoric sites discovered prior to the Phase I survey in the project area. This variable was used to gauge how much information was known about a parcel of land prior to survey. The variable —Project Type“ describes the kind of construction project associated with each Phase I survey report. Nine categories were developed to describe project types, including Bridge Replacement, Road Realignment, Single Road Alignment, Multiple Road Alignment, Road Widening, Strip Mine, Railroad Realignment, Stream Channel Improvements, and Garage Tract. The size of the survey project was recorded by the —Area“ variable. All reported units of measure (acres, square feet, square meters, etc.) were converted into hectares to ensure comparability among projects. This variable records the total size of the project area, not the area of the parcel of land that was actually surveyed. The season in which the Phase I survey was conducted was recorded with the —Season“ variable. In some instances, fieldwork spanned multiple seasons. In these cases, the season in which the majority of time was spent conducting fieldwork was recorded. The site discovery methods used by each project were recorded with the —Survey Method“ variable. The methods recorded include systematic pedestrian survey, visual 97 assessment, shovel-testing, informant interview, coring, backhoe trenching, color infrared imaging, and ground penetrating radar. The —General Interval“ variable refers to the spacing between transects or between exposures (e.g., shovel-test holes) for Phase I survey projects that did not involve a predictive model. This variable was used to gauge survey intensity. The total number of field-crew members involved in a Phase I survey project was recorded with the —Crew Size“ variable. This variable does not account for fluctuations in crew size throughout the duration of each project. Rather, it is a record of the maximum number of participants in the Phase I survey. The elapsed time spent conducting Phase I survey was recorded with the —Days in Field“ variable. When survey start-dates and end-dates were reported, it was assumed that all the days bracketed by these dates were spent conducting fieldwork, unless otherwise stated. 98 4.3 Project and Database Description The following is a description of the project data gathered from the 270 Phase I survey reports. The Project Database Description has four major sections: Administrative Attributes (i.e., County, Organization, Year of Project), Pre-Survey Attributes (i.e., Project Venue, Previously Recorded Sites), Survey Project Attributes (i.e., Project type, Area, Season), and Survey Design Attributes (i.e., Survey Methods, General Interval, Crew Size, Days in Field). 4.3.1 Administrative Attributes County Table 4.1.1 lists the number of Phase I surveys broken down alphabetically by county. Table 4.1.2 lists the number of Phase I surveys per county broken down by frequency (in descending order). Table 1.2 shows that Franklin County witnessed the most surveys with 13, followed by Knox County and Butler County with nine surveys each. No Phase I surveys were conducted in Fulton, Hardin, Holmes, Huron, and Ottawa counties. 99 TABLE 4.1.1 County Number of Hancock 5 Pickaway 5 Reports Hardin 0 Pike 6 Adams 4 Harrison 1 Portage 4 Allen 3 Henry 3 Preble 2 Ashland 6 Highland 5 Putnam 1 Ashtabula 2 Hocking 2 Richland 3 Athens 3 Holmes 0 Ross 4 Auglaize 1 Huron 0 Sandusky 4 Belmont 6 Jackson 3 Scioto 5 Brown 7 Jefferson 3 Seneca 5 Butler 9 Knox 9 Shelby 1 Carroll 5 Lake 1 Stark 3 Champaign 2 Lawrence 3 Summit 6 Clark 5 Licking 8 Trumbull 4 Clermont 8 Logan 2 Tuscarawas 3 Clinton 5 Lorain 5 Union 1 Columbiana 4 Lucas 6 Van Wert 1 Coshocton 6 Madison 1 Vinton 3 Crawford 4 Mahoning 3 Warren 4 Cuyahoga 3 Marion 5 Washington 2 Darke 1 Medina 2 Wayne 2 Defiance 3 Meigs 2 Williams 4 Delaware 4 Mercer 2 Wood 4 Erie 2 Miami 6 Wyandot 7 Fairfield 4 Monroe 2 Fayette 4 Montgomery 6 Franklin 13 Morgan 4 Fulton 0 Morrow 3 Gallia 4 Muskingum 6 Geauga 1 Noble 1 Greene 3 Ottawa 0 Guernsey 1 Paulding 1 Hamilton 6 Perry 3 100 TABLE 4.1.2 County Number of Gallia 4 Medina 2 Reports Morgan 4 Mercer 2 Franklin 13 Portage 4 Preble 2 Knox 9 Sandusky 4 Washington 2 Butler 9 Trumbull 4 Wayne 2 Clermont 8 Williams 4 Ashtabula 2 Licking 8 Wood 4 Hocking 2 Brown 7 Adams 4 Logan 2 Wyandot 7 Fayette 4 Meigs 2 Ashland 6 Crawford 4 Monroe 2 Belmont 6 Ross 4 Auglaize 1 Coshocton 6 Columbiana 4 Darke 1 Hamilton 6 Warren 4 Geauga 1 Lucas 6 Allen 3 Guernsey 1 Miami 6 Athens 3 Lake 1 Muskingum 6 Cuyahoga 3 Noble 1 Pike 6 Defiance 3 Union 1 Summit 6 Henry 3 Van Wert 1 Montgomery 6 Jackson 3 Harrison 1 Clark 5 Jefferson 3 Madison 1 Clinton 5 Lawrence 3 Paulding 1 Lorain 5 Mahoning 3 Putnam 1 Marion 5 Morrow 3 Shelby 1 Pickaway 5 Stark 3 Fulton 0 Seneca 5 Vinton 3 Hardin 0 Highland 5 Greene 3 Holmes 0 Carroll 5 Perry 3 Huron 0 Scioto 5 Tuscarawas 3 Ottawa 0 Hancock 5 Richland 3 Delaware 4 Champaign 2 Fairfield 4 Erie 2 101 Organization Table 4.2 indicates that nearly three-fourths (74.8%, n=202) of Phase I surveys were conducted by three organizations - ODOT (33.7%, n=91), ASC Group, Inc. (28.1%, n=76), and the Ohio Historical Society (13.0%, n=35). The majority of organizations listed (n=28) each contributed less than six surveys to the total project count. TABLE 4.2 Organization Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent ODOT 91 33.7 33.7 ASC Group, Inc. 76 28.1 61.9 Ohio Historical Society 35 13.0 74.8 Great Lakes-Ohio Valley ARMS 9 3.3 78.1 Gray & Pape, Inc. 6 2.2 80.4 Wright State University 5 1.9 82.2 Applied Archaeological Services 5 1.9 84.1 RG Archaeology 4 1.5 85.6 Cleveland State University 3 1.1 86.7 David R. Bush, Inc. 3 1.1 87.8 Hardlines Design Company, Inc. 2 .7 88.5 Ohio State University 2 .7 89.3 University of Akron 2 .7 90.0 University of Cincinnati 2 .7 90.7 Heidelberg College 2 .7 91.5 Miami Purchase Association 2 .7 92.2 Everett E. Hale 2 .7 93.0 Midwest Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2 .7 93.7 3D International 2 .7 94.4 Case Western Reserve University 2 .7 95.2 WAPORA, Inc. 1 .4 95.6 Kemron Environmental Services 1 .4 95.9 US Forest Service 1 .4 96.3 Gary F. Fry 1 .4 96.7 James L. Murphy 1 .4 97.0 Woolpert Consultants 1 .4 97.4 Independent Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 1 .4 97.8 Tony A. DeRegnaucourt 1 .4 98.1 Rising Tide 1 .4 98.5 University of Pittsburgh 1 .4 98.9 MS Consultants, Inc. 1 .4 99.3 Cleveland Museum of Natural History 1 .4 99.6 Archaeological Research Associates 1 .4 100.0 Total 270 100.0 102 Year of Project Report dates cover a 28-year period, ranging from 1974 to 2001. Table 4.3 groups report dates into four-year intervals. The period from 1994-1997 has the highest frequency (25.6%, n=69) of reports analyzed while the period from 1974-1977 has the lowest (7%, n=19). Clearly, 1990 to 2001 was the most active time period. TABLE 4.3 Year Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 1974-1977 19 7.0 7.0 1978-1981 42 15.6 22.6 1982-1985 21 7.8 30.4 1986-1989 24 8.9 39.3 1990-1993 52 19.2 58.5 1994-1997 69 25.6 84.1 1998-2001 43 15.9 100.0 Total 270 100.0 4.3.2 Pre-survey Attributes Project Venue Of the 270 Phase I reports, 79.3 percent (n=214) reported information regarding the setting where the survey was conducted. Table 4.4 shows that 72.9 percent (n=156) of the reporting surveys were conducted in rural settings, 17.3 percent (n=37) in suburban settings, 7.5 percent (n=16) in metropolitan settings, and 2.3 percent (n=5) in industrial zones. 103 TABLE 4.4 Project Venue Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Rural 156 57.8 72.9 72.9 Suburban 37 13.7 17.3 90.2 Metropolitan 16 5.9 7.5 97.7 Industrial 5 1.9 2.3 100.0 Valid Total 214 79.3 100.0 Not Reported 56 20.7 Total 270 100.0 Previously Recorded Sites As seen in Table 4.5, 82.2 percent (n=222) of projects reported no previously recorded sites in the survey area. The remaining 17.8 percent (n=48) of the projects reported a range of 1-156 previously recorded sites in their survey boundaries. TABLE 4.5 Previously Frequency Percent Cumulative Recorded Sites Percent 0 222 82.2 82.2 1-5 31 11.5 93.7 >5 17 6.3 100.0 Total 270 100.0 4.3.3 Survey Project Attributes Project Type Of the 270 surveys analyzed, 98.1 percent (n=265) reported the type of ground- disturbing activity with which they were associated. As illustrated in Table 4.6, 97.4 percent (n=258) of reports involved construction projects categorized as bridge replacements (34.3%, n=91), road realignments (21.1%, n=56), single road alignments (17.4%, n=46), road widening (12.5%, n=33), or multiple road alignments (12.1%, 104 n=32). Strip mines, railroad realignments, stream channel improvements, and garage tracts account for the remaining 2.6 percent (n=7) TABLE 4.6 Project Type Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative percent Bridge Replacement 91 33.7 34.3 34.3 Road Realignment 56 21.1 21.1 55.5 Single Road Alignment 46 17.4 17.4 72.8 Road Widening 33 12.5 12.5 85.3 Multiple Road Alignment 32 12.1 12.1 97.4 Railroad Realignment 3 1.1 1.1 98.5 Strip Mine 2 .8 .8 99.2 Stream Channel Improvements 1 .4 .4 99.6 Garage Tract 1 .4 .4 100.0 Valid Total 265 98.1 100.0 Not Reported 5 1.9 Total 270 100.0 Area Of the 270 projects, 84.4 percent (n=228) reported project area. The total project area ranged from .2 ha to 7,070 ha. As Table 4.7 shows, more than half (51.3%, n=117) of projects were small-scale, i.e., they were 1 ha or less in area. TABLE 4.7 Area (ha) Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 1 117 43.3 51.3 51.3 >1-10 52 19.2 22.8 74.1 >10 59 21.9 25.9 100.0 Valid Total 228 84.4 100.0 Not Reported 42 15.6 Total 270 100.0 105 Season Of the 270 reports, 88.5 percent (n=239) reported seasonal data. Table 4.8 indicates that 33.1 percent (n=79) of the surveys were conducted in summer months, 23.8 percent (n=57) in fall, 22.6 percent (n=54) in spring, and 20.5 percent (n=49) in winter. TABLE 4.8 Season Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Summer 79 29.3 33.1 33.1 Fall 57 21.1 23.8 56.9 Spring 54 20.1 22.6 79.5 Winter 49 18.1 20.5 100.0 Valid Total 239 88.5 100.0 Not Reported 31 11.5 Total 270 100.0 4.3.4 Survey Design Attributes Survey Methods Of the Phase I survey project reports that mentioned methods (Table 4.9.1), 51.3 percent (n=135) reported using a diverse number of methods (i.e., three or four methods). Table 4.9.2 shows the frequency of each method type among the projects. Shovel-testing and systematic-pedestrian survey were the two most widely used methods, 81.0 percent (n=213) and 78.3 percent (n=206), respectively. 106 TABLE 4.9.1 Number of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Methods Used Percent Percent 4 44 16.3 16.7 16.7 3 91 33.7 34.6 51.3 2 101 37.4 38.4 89.7 1 27 10.0 10.3 100.0 Valid Total 263 97.4 100.0 Not Reported 7 2.6 Total 270 100.0 TABLE 4.9.2 Method Frequency Percent of Valid Surveys (n=263) Shovel-testing 213 81.0 Systematic Pedestrian Survey 206 78.3 Visual Assessment 133 50.6 Informant Interview 67 25.5 Backhoe Trenching 30 11.4 Coring 28 10.7 Color Infrared Remote Sensing 1 .4 General Interval Of the 128 (47.4%) Phase I survey projects that reported the distance or spacing between transects or exposures when systematic-pedestrian survey was used, 95.3 percent (n=122) used intervals of 15 m or less (Table 4.10.1). Of the 164 (60.7%) Phase I survey projects that reported shovel-testing intervals, 93.3 percent (n=153) used intervals of 20 m or less (Table 4.10.2). 107 TABLE 4.10.1 Systematic Pedestrian Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Survey Percent Percent Interval (m) 1-5 59 21.8 46.1 46.1 6-10 33 12.2 25.8 71.9 11-15 30 11.1 23.4 95.3 16-20 5 1.9 3.9 99.2 > 20 1 .4 .8 100.0 Valid Total 128 47.4 100.0 Not Reported 142 52.6 Total 270 100.0 TABLE 4.10.2 Shovel-testing Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Interval (m) Percent Percent 1-5 1 .4 .6 .6 6-10 16 5.9 9.8 10.4 11-15 114 42.2 69.5 79.9 16-20 22 8.1 13.4 93.3 21-25 2 .7 1.2 94.5 26-30 5 1.9 3.0 97.5 > 30 4 1.5 2.5 100.0 Valid Total 164 60.7 100.0 Not Reported 106 39.3 Total 270 100.0 Crew Size Examination of Table 4.11 reveals that 26.7 percent of survey-project reports did not mention the size of survey crews. Of the 73.3 percent (n=198) of projects that did report crew-size data, more than half (54.6%, n=108) were conducted by three or less individuals. Interestingly, 24.2 percent (n=48) of surveys were conducted with a crew of six or more people. Crew-size ranges are quartiles based on the valid total frequency (n=198). 108 TABLE 4.11 Crew Size Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 1-2 75 27.8 37.9 37.9 3 33 12.2 16.7 54.6 4-5 42 15.6 21.2 75.8 6 48 17.7 24.2 100.0 Valid Total 198 73.3 100.0 Not Reported 72 26.7 Total 270 100.0 Days in Field As seen in Table 4.12, of the 270 survey projects, more than one-third (38.1%, n=103) did not mention how much time was spent in the field. Of those reports that did contain such information (n=167), more than half (55.7%) spent three days or less surveying. Days-in-field ranges are quartiles based on the valid total frequency (n=167). TABLE 4.12 Days in Field Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 1 56 20.7 33.5 33.5 2-3 37 13.7 22.2 55.7 4-9 35 13.0 21.0 76.7 >10 39 14.5 23.3 100.0 Valid Total 167 61.9 100.0 Not Reported 103 38.1 Total 270 100.0 109 4.4 Site Database Variable Description The variable —Site Number“ refers to a number assigned by the State Historical Preservation Office to archaeological phenomena discovered during a Phase I survey. Each number is in the Smithsonian trinomial nomenclature format where the first two digits refer to the state, the next two letters refer to the county, and the last set of digits refer to the sequential site number within the county. The —UC Number“ variable refers to the identification number that was assigned by UC to the project that discovered the site (Appendix B). This variable aids in referencing specific sites discovered by particular Phase I survey projects. The variable —County“ refers to the county in which a site was discovered. This variable associates sites to low-level geographic information, and affords a county-by- county comparison of site frequency data. The variable —Landform“ was designed to record the primary terrain type on which a site is located. Based on surveyor observations or our analysis of survey-area maps, one of the following 13 categories was selected: moraine, ridge-top/hillside, terrace, positive glacial-feature, negative glacial-feature, flood plain, stream valley, upland ridge-top, bluff, bench, ravine bottom, cliff/escarpment, and wetland. The variable —Field Condition“ recorded the appearance of the landscape where a site was discovered. The descriptive terms used to report field conditions varied 110 considerably. Hence, similar and overlapping terms were grouped into individual field descriptions. Based on surveyor observations, one of the following 11 categories was selected: pasture/hayfield/in-crop field, plowed field, woodlot/forest, overgrowth/weeds/brush, residential/industrial/lawn, graded/stripped/disturbed, plowed field/lawn/hayfield, woodlot/in-crop field, woodlot/lawn, lawn/in-crop field, and —logged“. The method by which a site was discovered during a Phase I survey was recorded in the —Survey Method Type“ variable. However, because a site (or Isolated Find) may have been discovered by the sequential application of several survey methods, each of the following six methods was recorded separately: systematic pedestrian survey, shovel- testing, visual assessment, informant interview, backhoe trenching, and coring. The variable —Month“ refers to the month during which a site was discovered. The variable aids in referencing seasonal vegetative and atmospheric conditions that may have affected the conduct and results of Phase I survey projects. The —Site Type“ variable recorded the taxon that a site was assigned to by the organization conducting the Phase I survey. Although the material culture discussed in the majority of Phase I survey reports is designated as Isolated Finds or Lithic Scatters (see below), many reports use a variety of poorly defined, overlapping, or interpretation- laden terms, such as village, habitation, or workshop, for site-type designations (see Discussion and Recommendations below). 111 Temporal periods reported to be represented at a site were recorded with the —Period Designation“ variable. The standard Midwestern Taxonomic System (Paleoindian, Early-Late Archaic, Early-Late Woodland, Fort Ancient, and Protohistoric) was employed to designate each period. The variable —Total Artifacts“ records the total number of artifacts reported for each site. This variable excludes fire-cracked-rock and faunal remains. Similarly, the total number of lithic raw materials was recorded with the —Total Material Types“ variable. The variable —Maximum Dimension“ was used to record the greatest linear dimension of a site. Units of measurement were standardized (and converted if necessary) to the metric system. If a site‘s size was reported in areal units, the measurement was converted into a diameter because a circle makes the fewest assumptions regarding the shape of a site. The —UTM Grid Zone“ variable recorded the Universal Transverse Mercator zone in which the site is located. The state of Ohio is divided into two UTM zones, 16 and 17. The variable —Northing“ was used to record the UTM northing measurement of each site location. This number is used for the y-axis coordinate when plotting site location. The variable —Easting“ was used to record the UTM easting measurement of each site location. This number is used for the x-axis coordinate when plotting site location. 112 The —National Register Status“ variable recorded whether a site had been assessed for possible listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A site was considered to be eligible, potentially eligible, or not eligible. The variable —Recommended for Further Testing“ recorded whether a site should be investigated further or avoided. If further testing was recommended by the organization conducting the Phase I survey, then —yes“ was recorded. If it was recommended that the site be avoided, but no further testing was suggested, —avoidance“ was recorded. 113 4.5 Site Database Description A total of 5,424 sites was reported by the 270 Phase I survey projects. As noted above (Table 4.1.2), no surveys were conducted in five counties œ Fulton, Hardin, Holmes, Huron, and Ottawa. In addition to these counties, 12 other counties œ Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Henry, Highland, Lake, Monroe, Noble, Pike, Preble, Seneca, and Trumbull - contained no sites, but, importantly, had been surveyed. The following is a summary description of the site-based information gathered from these survey reports. 4.5.1 Administrative Attributes County Table 4.13.1 lists frequencies of sites by county in alphabetical order and Table 4.13.2 by county in decreasing frequency. 114 TABLE 4.13.1 County Number of Hancock 300 Pickaway 13 Sites Hardin 0 Pike 0 Adams 18 Harrison 7 Portage 2 Allen 33 Henry 0 Preble 0 Ashland 7 Highland 0 Putnam 1 Ashtabula 0 Hocking 13 Richland 151 Athens 118 Holmes 0 Ross 151 Auglaize 159 Huron 0 Sandusky 3 Belmont 8 Jackson 4 Scioto 19 Brown 18 Jefferson 1 Seneca 0 Butler 82 Knox 18 Shelby 51 Carroll 248 Lake 0 Stark 217 Champaign 270 Lawrence 1 Summit 2 Clark 2 Licking 53 Trumbull 0 Clermont 1 Logan 286 Tuscarawas 5 Clinton 90 Lorain 1 Union 36 Columbiana 363 Lucas 1 Van Wert 34 Coshocton 9 Madison 3 Vinton 9 Crawford 636 Mahoning 2 Warren 16 Cuyahoga 0 Marion 12 Washington 45 Darke 1 Medina 1 Wayne 9 Defiance 3 Meigs 39 Williams 1 Delaware 104 Mercer 2 Wood 2 Erie 2 Miami 8 Wyandot 558 Fairfield 893 Monroe 0 Fayette 24 Montgomery 11 Franklin 156 Morgan 8 Fulton 0 Morrow 3 Gallia 13 Muskingum 20 Geauga 0 Noble 0 Greene 26 Ottawa 0 Guernsey 4 Paulding 3 Hamilton 9 Perry 3 115 TABLE 4.13.2 County Number of Brown 18 Jefferson 1 Sites Gallia 13 Lawrence 1 Fairfield 893 Hocking 13 Lorain 1 Crawford 636 Pickaway 13 Lucas 1 Wyandot 558 Marion 12 Medina 1 Columbiana 363 Montgomery 11 Putnam 1 Hancock 300 Coshocton 9 Williams 1 Logan 286 Hamilton 9 Ashtabula 0 Champaign 270 Vinton 9 Cuyahoga 0 Carroll 248 Wayne 9 Fulton 0 Stark 217 Belmont 8 Geauga 0 Auglaize 159 Miami 8 Hardin 0 Franklin 156 Morgan 8 Henry 0 Richland 151 Ashland 7 Highland 0 Ross 151 Harrison 7 Holmes 0 Athens 118 Tuscarawas 5 Huron 0 Delaware 104 Guernsey 4 Lake 0 Clinton 90 Jackson 4 Monroe 0 Butler 82 Defiance 3 Noble 0 Licking 53 Madison 3 Ottawa 0 Shelby 51 Morrow 3 Pike 0 Washington 45 Paulding 3 Preble 0 Meigs 39 Perry 3 Seneca 0 Union 36 Sandusky 3 Trumbull 0 Van Wert 34 Clark 2 Allen 33 Erie 2 Greene 26 Mahoning 2 Fayette 24 Mercer 2 Muskingum 20 Portage 2 Scioto 19 Summit 2 Adams 18 Wood 2 Knox 18 Clermont 1 Warren 16 Darke 1 116 4.5.2 Survey Factors Landform Table 4.14 indicates that terrain-type data were available for 77.2 percent (n=4,184) of sites. Overall, 69.9 percent (n=2,924) of sites were located on one of three landform categories: moraine (n=1,733), ridge-top/hillside (n=715), or terrace (n=476). The remaining 30 percent (n=1,258) are distributed among the other ten categories. TABLE 4.14 Landform Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Moraine 1733 32.0 41.4 41.4 Ridge-top/Hillside 715 13.2 17.1 58.5 Terrace 476 8.8 11.4 69.9 Positive Glacial Feature 321 5.9 7.7 77.6 Negative Glacial Feature 300 5.5 7.2 84.8 Flood Plain 258 4.8 6.2 90.9 Stream Valley 146 2.7 3.5 94.4 Upland Ridge-top 88 1.6 2.1 96.5 Bluff 58 1.1 1.4 97.9 Bench 41 .8 1.0 98.9 Ravine Bottom 33 .6 .8 99.7 Cliff/Escarpment 7 .1 .2 99.9 Wetland 6 .1 .1 100.0 Valid Total 4182 77.2 100.0 Not Reported 1236 22.8 Total 5424 100.0 117 Field Condition The appearance of the landscape when survey occurred was reported for 85.3 percent (n=4,621) of sites. Table 4.15 indicates that 84.7 percent (n=3,913) of sites fall into one of three categories: pasture/hayfield/in-crop field (n=2,014), plowed field (n=1,303), or no-till/harvested/stubble (n=596). The remaining 708 (15.3%) sites are divided among the 11 other field-condition categories. TABLE 4.15 Field Condition Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Pasture/Hayfield/In-crop Field 2014 37.2 43.6 43.6 Plowed Field 1303 24.0 28.2 71.8 No Till/Harvested Field/Stubble 596 11.0 12.9 84.7 Woodlot/Forest 172 3.2 3.7 88.4 Overgrowth/Weeds/Brush 139 2.6 3.0 91.4 Residential/Industrial/Lawn 102 1.9 2.2 93.6 Graded/Stripped/Disturbed 76 1.4 1.6 95.3 Plowed Field/Lawn/Hayfield 68 1.3 1.5 96.7 Woodlot/In-crop Field 40 .7 .9 97.6 Unspecified Field 34 .6 .7 98.3 Woodlot/Lawn/In-crop Field 29 .5 .6 99.0 Woodlot/Lawn 26 .5 .6 99.5 Lawn/In-crop Field 18 .3 .4 99.9 Logged 4 .1 .1 100.0 Valid Total 4621 85.3 100.0 Not Reported 797 14.7 Total 5424 100.0 118 Survey Method Type The methods used to discover a site were reported for 94.9 percent (n=5,139) of the cases (Table 4.16.1) Examination of Table 4.16.1 shows that 70.0 percent (n=3,599) of sites were discovered with one method. Of these, systematic pedestrian survey was responsible for 79.6 percent (n=2,865) of the discoveries (Table 4.16.2). Table 4.16.3 shows that, of the 1,249 sites discovered using a combination of two methods, 79.3 percent (n=990) were discovered using visual assessment and either systematic pedestrian survey or shovel-testing. Of the 282 sites discovered using a combination of three methods (Table 4.16.4), 95.0 percent (n=268) were discovered with shovel-testing, systematic pedestrian survey, and visual assessment. Table 4.16.5 shows the different combinations of four methods used to discover the remaining nine sites. TABLE 4.16.1 Number Number of Percent Valid Cumulative of Methods Sites Found Percent Percent 1 3599 66.4 70.0 70.0 2 1249 23.1 24.3 94.3 3 282 5.2 5.5 99.8 4 9 .2 .2 100.0 Valid Total 5139 94.9 100.0 Not Reported 279 5.1 Total 5424 100.0 TABLE 4.16.2 Method Used Number of Percent Cumulative Sites Found Percent Systematic Pedestrian Survey 2865 79.6 79.6 Shovel-testing 639 17.8 97.4 Informant Interview 54 1.5 98.9 Visual Assessment 41 1.1 100.0 Total 3599 100.0 119 TABLE 4.16.3 Methods Used Number of Percent Cumulative Sites Found Percent Systematic Pedestrian Survey & 672 53.8 53.8 Visual Assessment Shovel-testing & 318 25.5 79.3 Visual Assessment Shovel-testing & 214 17.2 96.5 Systematic Pedestrian Survey Informant Interview & 30 2.4 98.9 Visual Assessment Informant Interview & 12 1.0 99.9 Systematic Pedestrian Survey Backhoe Trenching & 1 .0 99.9 Systematic Pedestrian Survey Coring & Shovel-testing 1 .0 99.9 Informant Interview & 1 .0 100.0 Visual Assessment Total 1249 100.0 TABLE 4.16.4 Methods Used Number of Percent Cumulative Sites Found Percent Shovel-testing, 268 95.0 95.0 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Visual Assessment Informant Interview, Shovel-testing 4 1.4 96.4 & Visual Assessment Informant Interview, 3 1.1 97.5 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Shovel-testing Informant Interview, 3 1.1 98.6 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Visual Assessment Backhoe Trenching, Shovel-testing 2 .7 99.3 & Systematic Pedestrian Survey Coring, Shovel-testing & 1 .3 99.6 Visual Assessment Coring, Shovel-testing & 1 .3 100.0 Systematic Pedestrian Survey Total 282 100.0 120 TABLE 4.16.5 Methods Used Number of Percent Cumulative Sites Found Percent Informant Interview, Shovel-testing, 4 44.5 44.5 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Visual Assessment Backhoe Trenching, Informant Interview, 2 22.2 66.7 Shovel-testing & Systematic Pedestrian Survey Coring, Shovel-testing, 2 22.2 88.9 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Visual Assessment Backhoe Trenching, Shovel-testing, 1 11.1 100.0 Systematic Pedestrian Survey & Visual Assessment Total 9 100.0 Month In contrast to the —Season“ variable that was mentioned routinely for when Phase I survey projects were conducted (Table 4.8), information regarding the month during which a site had been discovered was reported for only 17.3 percent (n=939) of the cases. As show in Table 4.17, nearly half (47.5%, n=446) of sites were discovered during three months -- June (20.3%, n=191), October (15.2%, n=143), or November (11.9%, n=112). TABLE 4.17 Month Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent June 191 3.5 20.3 20.3 October 143 2.6 15.2 35.6 November 112 2.1 11.9 47.5 December 99 1.8 10.5 58.0 April 87 1.6 9.3 67.3 May 80 1.5 8.5 75.8 July 54 1.0 5.8 81.6 February 53 1.0 5.6 87.2 August 53 1.0 5.6 92.9 March 31 .6 3.3 96.2 January 20 .4 2.1 98.3 September 16 .3 1.7 100.0 Valid Total 939 17.3 100.0 Not Reported 4479 82.7 Total 5424 100.0 121 4.5.3 Site Attributes Site Type Information regarding this variable was reported for 96.7 percent (n=5,240) of sites found during Phase I survey. Table 4.18 shows that 56.6 percent (n=2,967) of sites were categorized as lithic scatters and 39.1 percent (n=2,048) were isolated finds. These two categories account for 95.7 percent of sites. The last 4.3 percent (n=225) of sites was distributed among 17 categories. TABLE 4.18 Site Type Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Lithic Scatter 2967 54.8 56.6 56.6 Isolated Find 2048 37.8 39.1 95.7 Camp 63 1.2 1.2 96.9 Earthwork 40 .7 .8 97.7 Scatter Unspecified 34 .6 .6 98.3 Lithic Scatter and FCR 19 .4 .4 98.7 Habitation 17 .3 .3 99.0 Sherd and Lithic Scatter 13 .2 .2 99.3 Rock shelter 13 .2 .2 99.5 Village 6 .1 .1 99.6 FCR Scatter 3 .1 .1 99.7 Feature Unspecified 3 .1 .1 99.7 Lithic Quarry 3 .1 .1 99.8 Workshop 3 .1 .1 99.8 Quarry 2 .0 .0 99.9 Human Remains 2 .0 .0 99.9 Burial 2 .0 .0 100.0 Pit 1 .0 .0 100.0 Hamlet 1 .0 .0 100.0 Valid Total 5240 100.0 Not Reported 178 Total 5424 122 Period Designation Diagnostic data used to determine period designation were reported for 15.6 percent (n=847) of sites. Table 4.19 shows that the Archaic Period (all phases) was the most frequently reported period designation. TABLE 4.19 Period Designation Frequency Late Archaic 334 Early Archaic 217 Middle Archaic 119 Middle Woodland 117 Early Woodland 88 Late Woodland 86 Paleoindian 34 Fort Ancient 28 Protohistoric 18 Total Artifacts Data were reported for 86.1 percent (n=4,667) of sites. Table 4.20 shows that 58.5 percent (n=2,730) of sites had two or less artifacts (of these sites, 1,978 were isolated finds). More than three-fourths (77.4%, n=3,613) of sites had less than seven artifacts (of these sites, 1,991 were isolated finds). TABLE 4.20 Total Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Artifacts Percent Percent 0-1 2064 38.1 44.2 44.2 2 666 12.3 14.3 58.5 3-6 883 16.3 18.9 77.4 >6 1054 19.4 22.6 100.0 Valid Total 4667 86.1 100.0 Not Reported 751 13.9 Total 5424 100.0 123 Total Material Types Data were reported for 80.6 percent (n=4,360) of sites. Table 4.21 shows that 75.2 percent (n=3,279) of sites had two or less raw-material types represented in their assemblages (of these sites, 1,238 were isolated finds). TABLE 4.21 Number of Lithic Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Raw Material Percent Percent Types 0-1 2436 45.0 55.9 55.9 2 843 15.6 19.3 75.2 >3 1081 20.0 24.8 100.0 Valid Total 4360 80.6 100.0 Not Reported 1058 19.4 Total 5424 100.0 Maximum Dimension Maximum dimension data were reported for 81.5 percent (n=4,410) of the sites. Table 4.22 shows that 50.7 percent (n=2,237) had a maximum dimension of 10 m or less (of these sites, 1,365 were isolated finds). The other half (49.3 %, n=2,173) reported a maximum dimension greater than 10 m (of these sites,18 were isolated finds). TABLE 4.22 Maximum Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Dimension (m) Percent Percent 1 1543 28.5 35.0 35.0 >1-10 694 12.8 15.7 50.7 >10-42 1071 19.8 24.3 75.0 >42 1102 20.3 25.0 100.0 Valid Total 4410 81.5 100.0 Not Reported 1008 18.5 Total 5424 100.0 124 4.5.4 Post-discovery Attributes National Register Status Table 4.23 shows that 89.0 percent of sites found during Phase I survey were determined to be ineligible (n=3,344) or were not assessed (n=1,389). The remaining 11 percent were reported to be potentially eligible (n=577) or eligible (n=6). TABLE 4.23 National Register Status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Eligible 3344 61.7 62.9 62.9 Not Assessed 1389 25.6 26.1 89.0 Potentially Eligible 577 10.6 10.9 99.9 Eligible 6 .1 .1 100.0 Valid Total 5316 98.1 100.0 Not Reported 102 1.9 Total 5424 100.0 Recommended for Further Testing Table 4.24 shows that information pertaining to this variable was reported for only 13.8 percent (n=746) of sites discovered during Phase I survey. Of those, 91.8 percent (n=685) were recommended for further testing and 8.2 percent (n=61) were recommended for avoidance. TABLE 4.24 Recommendation Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 685 12.6 91.8 91.8 Avoidance 61 1.1 8.2 100.0 Valid Total 746 13.8 100.0 Not Reported 4672 86.2 Total 5424 100.0 125 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Evaluative Framework To understand how the factors that influence Phase I survey design affect ODOT planning strategies, an evaluative framework was developed (Table 5.1). Based on our analysis of Phase I surveys conducted between 1974-2001, variables that affect the design and conduct of such surveys can be assigned to one of four classes. TABLE 5.1 Poorly or Inconsistently Consistently Recorded Recorded Little Effect on ODOT Class 1 Class 2 Planning Useful in ODOT Class 3 Class 4 Planning Class 1 variables are defined as poorly and/or inconsistently recorded survey- design factors that have little effect, if any, on ODOT planning (hence, they are largely extraneous). Two variables, Landform and Site Type, are included in this class. Both of these variables are problematic because, for the most part, they are idiosyncratic, interpretation-laden, and investigator dependent. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between landform descriptors such as rise, hill, bluff, and slope. Often, survey crews use these terms interchangeably because they are unable to definitively determine which kind of landform accurately describes the setting where a survey is being conducted or a site has been found. Consequently, such landform descriptors provide little assistance to ODOT planning because of their ambiguity. A 126 better alternative is to define landform types by establishing user-defined classes of attributes (e.g., slope, elevation) on DEMs (digital elevation models). Similarly, site-types such as habitation and village are indistinguishable from one another based on median number of artifacts per site-type (Fig. 5.1) and maximum site dimensions (Fig. 5.2), as are lithic quarry and workshop. These data also suggest that current field protocols for designating, much less distinguishing, among various kinds of archaeological phenomena, are operationally inadequate or inconsistently applied. Whichever the case maybe, site-type is of little value when what is actually needed for ODOT planning purposes is accurate locational information regarding the presence or absence of archaeological phenomena in the corridor of a proposed undertaking. Figure 5.1. 127 Figure 5.2. Class 2 variables are those that are consistently recorded yet have little effect, if any, on ODOT planning. Four variables are included in this class: Season, Total Artifacts, Total Lithic Material Types, and National Register Status. The Season variable is too broad a time span to predict when to plan Phase I surveys. A more appropriate variable would be month or week. Both total number of artifacts and material types are of little assistance in planning because they do not provide any information as to size or density of archaeological phenomena. Because there is no standard protocol for assigning artifacts to —sites,“ impractical (and largely useless) decisions are made in the field resulting in either long, linear site-shapes (e.g.,—dumbbells“) consisting of few artifacts in two clusters or entire fields being designated as —sites“ that consist of a few, randomly scattered isolated finds. 128 Clearly, the abundance of —Potentially Eligible“ sites reported shows that National Register Status is likely to be unusable for planning purposes. The Potentially Eligible value is generally used when site maximum dimension exceeds 42 m and number of total artifacts exceeds six (see Fig. 5.3 and Fig. 5.4, respectively). In view of these de facto criteria, perhaps National Register assessment should be reserved for later phases of investigation. Figure 5.3. Figure 5.4. 129 Class 3 variables are those that are poorly or inconsistently recorded but might be useful in planning. This class consists of three variables: Month, Project Area, and Days in the Field. Month of discovery was taken from site-forms if they were included in the survey report which was uncommon (see Table 4.17). This information is potentially highly useful because it provides a way to assess how short-term differences in field conditions, ground cover, and weather affect discovery possibilities of archaeological phenomena. The only information regarding the size of the survey project (—area“) was reported as totals for the entire project corridor. This information was largely useless because it was impossible to subdivide the project area into relevant survey areas. Unless it is assumed that survey area equals project area, which is risky, factors that affect ODOT planning, such as artifact or feature density, cannot be assessed reasonably. The variable titled —Days in Field“ was designed to capture how variation in intensity affected discovery probabilities. Unfortunately, this information was reported mostly as a range of dates for the entire project, e.g., Sept. 14 œ Oct. 25, rather than as precise start-dates and end-dates for actual survey. For Class 4, which refers to variables that were consistently recorded and would be useful in planning, only one survey-related variable can be allocated œ UTM (zone and coordinates). Although UTM coordinates were available ultimately for 3,910 130 archaeological sites, there is no current way to assess their reliability. Presently, most coordinates are derived by hand-plotting centroids on 7.5‘ topographic maps, which is a highly error-prone procedure. For example, the average adjustment made by the SHPO when correcting UTM coordinates reported by contractors is 13.14 km (range = 0 - 507.79 km, standard deviation = 57.32 km), and there still is no basis to judge whether these adjustments accurately place archaeological phenomena on the landscape. Assuming the main goal of a Phase I survey is to ascertain the whereabouts of archaeological phenomena, ODOT planning is constrained by the lack of standard, accurate procedures for determining UTM coordinates. 131 5.2 Recommendations In order to overcome the bulk of problems that affect the usefulness of Phase I survey data for ODOT planning, particularly the lack of accurate UTM coordinates for registering survey boundaries and the locations of archaeological phenomena, we propose Electronic Survey (e-survey) procedures that utilize state-of-the-art GPS receivers, GIS technology, and the Internet. These protocols will expedite the Phase I process because survey-designated resources can be allocated more efficiently by discontinuing the use of variables that are useless to ODOT planning, e.g., landform and site-type, by eliminating variables that require interpretation (and, hence, are inconsistently recorded), and by ensuring the capture of highly accurate data regarding survey intensity and the locations of archaeological phenomena. 5.2.1 Pre-survey Requirements 1. ODOT personnel and surveyors should become familiar with principles and range of applications of GPS technology. Additional knowledge in the manipulation of GPS data with software packages, e.g., Trimble Pathfinder Office, and the creation of a data dictionary is critical. 2. ODOT personnel and surveyors should be proficient in internet-related technology and familiar with file transfer protocol (ftp) applications, e.g., WS-FTP, Cute FTP. 3. ODOT should retain web and GIS specialists who are able to create and maintain an ODOT ftp website and the ODOT Archaeological GIS. 132 5.2.2 Phase I Survey Protocols 1. Surveyors supply their own GPS equipment in accordance with specifications determined by ODOT. 2. Surveyors download ODOT Survey Data Dictionary from ODOT ftp website and upload it into surveyor GPS Units, e.g., Trimble GeoExplorer III or CE XT. This data dictionary, which can be revised as circumstances warrant, should be the standard for recording survey data statewide. 3. Surveyors download project-area-related GIS files from ODOT ftp-website. These files include digitized topographic maps, survey corridors, and previously recorded sites. Data collected with GPS rovers can be plotted onto these maps to ensure adequate survey coverage. 4. Surveyors conduct a Phase I survey recording UTM coordinates and attributes for beginning and ending points of transects, shovel-test/observation units, artifact or feature cluster centroids and boundaries. 5.2.3 Post-survey Protocols 1. Surveyors differentially correct survey data (with a software package similar to Trimble Pathfinder Office) to ensure accurate (i.e., < 2m centroid error) UTM coordinates. 2. Surveyors upload survey data to a secure ODOT ftp-website along with metadata, which provide descriptions of variables and collection procedures. 133 3. ODOT personnel integrate survey data into preexisting ODOT archaeological GIS for planning purposes, e.g., determine NRHP eligibility, additional work, avoidance, etc. 5.2.4 E-survey Benefits 1. Error is reduced with standardized procedures for Phase I survey. 2. Survey reports are no longer submitted in a paper format, thereby dramatically reducing costs both economically and environmentally. 3. ODOT has a flexible archaeological GIS which contains only variables determined to be relevant to ODOT planning that can be queried to respond to planning problems concerned with locations of archaeological phenomena. 4. ODOT curates survey data in a uniform digital framework that can be accessed by and integrated with future SHPO and ODOT projects. 134 6 PHASE I SURVEY DATA AND PREDICTIVE MODELS 6.1 Introduction Gray and Pape, Inc. and ASC Group, Inc. created the first predictive models for ODOT for the US Route 30 project (Weed et. al 1996; Stevenson 1993; Stevenson and Ellis 1993). All subsequent predictive models developed for ODOT were influenced by these studies, which are empirically based, study-area specific, and environmentally determined. These models share a common problem that does little to advance ODOT‘s predictive modeling objectives. Because they focus on modern construction corridors, whose boundaries are unlikely to correspond to prehistoric land-use patterns, such models will have little success in predicting accurately the presence of archaeological resources. After reviewing some of the principal deficiencies of these models, we propose an alternative approach. 6.1.1 Primitivism Some predictive model developers adopted, perhaps inadvertently, an ethnocentric view in discussing the factors that affect the locations of prehistoric Native American sites and historic Euro-American sites. For example, Church (1994:1) states: Historic sites were excluded from the model because of the complexity of features involved in site location decision-making. The availability of resources for industrial development; governmental and private land deals; hostile Native Americans and later treaties; geographic proximity to transportation networks, 135 previous settlements, and cultural amenities such as a school or church; and ethnic backgrounds of settlers are just a few of the many influences on patterns of historic settlements in the region. Such statements misrepresent the considerations that prehistoric peoples made in adjusting their settlement patterns. Presumably, these people, too, had to worry about the location and availability of resources, hostile and friendly neighbors, and proximity to abandoned settlements, sacred sites, and transportation networks. In fact, one could argue that modeling historic Euro-American sites should be less error-prone because the factors influencing settlement decisions are codified in historical documents (Sullivan et al. 1999). Obviously, the variables affecting settlement location vary through time, across space, and among different ancient societies. Early Archaic hunter-gather groups, for instance, used the same terrain differently than Fort Ancient agriculturalists (Dancey 1998). 6.1.2 Methodologies The vast majority of ODOT modeling studies (e.g., Stevenson 1993; Stevenson and Ellis 1993; Corso et al. 1994; Whitman et al. 1998) present discussions on the differences between inductively-derived and deductively-derived models. In some cases, authors claim that they are developing an inductively-derived empirical-correlational model, but that does not seem to be the case. At the very least, such models should be based upon correlations between existing site data and ecological data (Kohler 1988:37). Unfortunately, according to the authors of one study, —the ability to predict the location of archaeological sites in uninvestigated areas cannot be achieved based upon existing information" (Stevenson and Ellis 1993:2). Hence, rather than developing inductive- 136 correlational models it appears that the authors develop deductive models using their knowledge of Ohio prehistory to determine which variables would mostly likely have influenced settlement patterns (e.g., soil fertility, soil drainage). For instance, the predictive model for the Route 30 project area was deductively developed "based upon the assumption that prehistoric settlements would be located in the areas that were the most productive and best suited for occupation“ (Stevenson and Ellis 1993:5). In terms of performance criteria, a predictive model should not only successfully predict site locations but also non-site locations, as well. For example, if the model predicts 90 percent of sites in a locale that only takes up 20 percent of the study area, it has strong predictive value. If, however, the model predicts 90 percent of the sites in a locale that covers 80 percent of the study area, then the model is comparatively impoverished. In most of the ODOT models, however, if the majority of sites are predicted to occur in 60 percent of the study area, the model is deemed to be successful and, hence, useful (for planning purposes, presumably). These results are indicative of a model that did not incorporate the correct predictor variables that affect archaeological site locations. Actually, some authors of the ODOT modeling studies candidly admit as much: "Thus it appears from the development of the model that we have not sufficiently identified those variables which were important in prehistoric site location" (Whitman et al. 1998:13). In one study (Corso et al. 1994:13), the authors report that, during the first run of the model, 75 percent of the sites were misclassified. However, when mound sites were 137 eliminated from the dataset and only lithic scatters were used in the analysis, the model correctly classified 72 percent of the sites. These results are compelling evidence that different variables influence the location of different kinds of sites. 6.1.3 Objectives Previous ODOT models assume that the archaeological site is the focus of investigation (Stevenson and Ellis 1993:1; Stevenson 1993:1). In fact, as Kvamme (1990:258) states, "it must be made clear that the elementary unit of investigation in archaeological modeling studies is the parcel of land, not the archaeological site." Another aspect of the ODOT models that seems unwarranted is an attempt to predict the occurrence of sites that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Whitman et al. 1998:10-11; Baker 1998:24). In the Whitman et al. study, isolated finds or small sites (i.e., less than 1m2) were defined as low probability and hence, ineligible. Somewhat inexplicably, the dismissal of small sites or isolated finds, such as Paleo-Indian artifacts, assumes they are insignificant. 6.1.4 Unit of Analysis Without exception, ODOT predictive-model developers have chosen habitat type as the principal independent variable. They argue that habitat type is a powerful predictive variable largely because the soils of a project area have been mapped by the 138 USDA (Stevenson and Ellis 1993:11; Church et al. 1994:31). It appears, then, that soil type rather than habitat type is the actual unit of analysis. Unquestionably, soil type is a variable that must be included in any archaeological predictive model but the low success rate of the aformentioned ODOT models demonstrates the inadequacy of using soils as the principal, if not exclusive, unit of analysis. Some predictive modelers argue against using artificial units (i.e., grid cells) because of the effort required to computerize their ecological and locational attributes (Weed et al. 1996; Stevenson 1993; Stevenson and Ellis 1993). Actually, the availability today of digitized ecological data from numerous governmental and commercial entities (see Appendix C) makes the use of artificial quadrants less burdensome, which is particularly important if a unit of land is the focus archaeological predictive models. 6.1.5 Predictor Variables Many predictor variables selected to develop the ODOT models are somewhat problematic. For instance, a commonly used variable, distance-to-water, needs to be supplemented by a consideration of stream rank because it has a profound effect on settlement patterns. In a study by Mink et al. (2001), it was found that, by differentiating drainages according to rank order, the accuracy in predicting sites within unit areas was improved dramatically. 139 The idea of using variation in arable land as a predictor variable for prehistoric site location modeling is also troublesome (Schroeder 1999). While arable land availability may be useful in predicting the likely locations of ancient agricultural settlements, it may be misleading for predicting hunter-gatherer sites, unless land-use patterns were stable for long periods of time, which is unlikely. The use of bushels per acre (BPA) acquired from modern USDA data is equally difficult to justify. Such BPA data would need to be corrected to develop realistic prehistoric yields (Schroeder 2002). For the Route 30 predictive models (Weed et al. 1996; Stevenson 1993; Stevenson and Ellis 1993), GLO survey records (specifically, records of blazed witness- trees at range quarter corners) and USDA data were used to approximate nut-bearing-tree habitat data. These data were then incorporated into the predictive models to estimate preferential habitats of prehistoric settlements. It appears that this predictor variable was eliminated from later models because it is based on a chain of weak assumptions, which even the author acknowledges (Stevenson 1993:6). These assumptions include the idea that earlier surveyors were completely knowledgeable of all species and sub-species of trees in an area and that they could reliably identify and record them. It also assumes that the witness-trees were nearest the survey stake and that certain species were not preferentially chosen over others. There is no evidence that these assumptions are realistic and, therefore, we must conclude that the usefulness of the variable is uncertain at best. 140 6.2 Phase I Survey Data and Predictive Modeling: An Attribute Approach In view of the deficiencies of project or corridor-specific models, we propose incorporating Phase I survey data in terrain-based predictive models, i.e., models where archaeological remains are attributes of space. Of the 3,910 archaeological sites with SHPO-corrected UTM locations (Fig. 6.1), 438 sites were found to be scattered, isolated occurrences and, hence, were excluded from further consideration. Based on our assessment of the statewide distribution of site clusters, we established 13 study areas across Ohio (Fig. 6.2). In the aggregate, these study areas contain 3,472 sites (88.8 %) with corrected UTM coordinates. These study areas provide adequate sample sizes across a variety of environmental terrains. Within each study area, seven variables will be explored: aspect, distance to nearest water (including stream rank), glacial geology, land form, slope, soil type, and vegetal cover. Table 6.1 indicates the data layers that are available for each study area. The numbers in each cell refer to archaeological sites discovered by Phase I surveys. Once these data layers are assembled (Appendix C) and analyzed, the strength of each variable‘s influence on the spatial patterning of archaeological sites within each study area can be investigated. A control sample, equal in number to the sites in the modeling sample, will need to be generated from random points within each study area. By comparing the attributes of known and random points on the landscape, it should be possible to determine which variables influence the spatial patterning of archaeological sites within each study area. These 141 variables will then be used in the initial Stage I predictive modeling effort (ODOT Project 10302). 142 Figure 6.1. Distribution of 3,910 archaeological sites with SHPO-corrected UTM locations. 143 Figure 6.2. Distribution of 13 predictive-modeling study areas. 144 TABLE 6.1 Study Vegetation1 Vegetation & Vegetation, Total Sites Area Soils2 Soils, & Within Glacial Polygon Geology3 1 328 328 0 328 2 656 0 0 656 3 370 211 0 370 4 326 170 0 326 5 267 267 267 267 6 182 182 137 182 7 50 50 50 50 8 840 840 840 840 9 69 0 0 69 10 86 86 86 86 11 130 130 0 130 12 124 87 0 124 13 44 44 0 44 Total 3472 2395 1380 3472 1 = Appendix C.1 2 = Appendix C.2 3 = Appendix C.3 145 References Cited Baker, S.W. 1998 The ADA-SR41-35.485 (22.04SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Over Ohio Brush Creek in Meigs and Oliver Townships, Adams County, Ohio, and Further Interpretation of 33AD371: Addendum Report (PID 12884). A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Corso, R.A. B. Campagna, C.M. Stevenson, and D. Dobson-Brown 1994 Predictive Model and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed U.S. Route 33 Relocation in Athens,Alexander, and Loudi Townships, Athens County and Bedford Townships, Megis County, Ohio. A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Church, F. 1994 An Evaluation of a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Western Division of the Stark/Columbiana/Carroll Counties (STA/COL-030-18.35/0.00) Route 30 Study Area. A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Dancey, W. S. 1998 The Value of Surface Archaeological Data in Exploring the Dynamics of Community Evolution in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Surface Archaeology, edited by A.P. Sullivan, pp. 3-19. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Dudzik, M.J. 2002 Archaeology in Minnesota: the Background for Mn/Model. A paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Kohler, T.A. 1988 Predictive Locational Modeling: History and Current Practice. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W.J. Judge and L. Sebastian, pp. 19-59. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Kvamme, K.L. 1990 The Fundamental Principles and Practice of Predictive Archaeological Modeling. In Mathematics and Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, edited by A. Voorrips, pp. 257-297. Holos, Bonn Germany. Mink, P.B., II, D. Pollack, B.J. Stokes, J. Fenton, W. Stoner, G. Hume 2001 Points versus Polygons: Predictive Modeling in a Statewide Geographic Information System. A paper presented at the 2001 GIS and Archaeology Conference, Argonne National Labs, Chicago, Illinois. Schroeder, S. 1999 Maize Production in the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains of North America. American Antiquity 64:499-516. 2001 Understanding Variation in Prehistoric Agricultural Productivity: The Importance of Distinguishing Among Potential, Available, and Consumptive Yields. American Antiquity 66:517-525. Stevenson, C.M. 1993 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Wyandot and Crawford Counties, Ohio. A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Stevenson, C.M. and J.G. Ellis 1993 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Using the Western Division Sample Area STA/COL-30-8.35/0.00, in Carroll, Columbiana, and Stark Counties, Ohio. A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Sullivan, A.P., J.A. Tainter, and D.L. Hardesty 1999 Historical Science, Heritage Resources, and Ecosystem Management. In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, Vol. II, edited by N.C. Johnson, A.J. Malk, R. Szaro, and W.T. Sexton, pp. 493-515. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K. Weed, C.S., E.H. Tuttle, E.J. Harris, and R.G. Meyers 1996 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of Proposed Support Areas for the Route 30 STA/COL-30- 18.35/0.00 Alternatives Eastern Segment, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, Ohio Volume I (Revised). A report submitted by Gray and Pape Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. Whitman, L.G., C. Mustain, F. Church, N. Young, J. Vosvick, D. Walter, and A. Kramb 1998 Phase I Literature Review, Predictive Model, and Archaeological Cultural Resource Survey for the AUG?LOG-33-26.875/0.00; (PID 16385) Project in Clay, Duchouquet, Goshen, Pusheta, and Union Townships in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships n Logan County, Ohio and Dinsmore and Jackson Township in Shelby County, Ohio. A report submitted by ASC Inc. to the Ohio Department of Transportation. 146 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 01-001 Aug-80 Detailed Testing at the Perry I Site (33-AD-40), Adams County, Ohio (ADA-32-0.00) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 01-003 4/15/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 41 Jacksonville By-pass in Adams County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 01-004 64 9/17/1976 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "D" Through Clermont, Brown, Highland and Adams Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 01-01-002 66 4/8/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "B" Through Adams and Scioto Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 01-016 Sep-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ADA-SR41-35.485(22.04 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Over Ohio Brush Creek in Meigs and Oliver Townships, Adams County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 (PID 12884) 01-018 142 May-98 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for the ADA-SR136-34.605 (21.51 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Located in Winchester Township, Adams County, Ohio (PID 12905) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 01-07-01-017 Mar-98 The ADA-SR41-35,485(22.04 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Over Ohio Brush Creek in Meigs and Oliver Townships, Adams County, Ohio, and Further Interpretation of 3 7/18/2001 33AD371: Addendum Report (PID 12884) 02-001 7/27/1978 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey for Relocation of S.R. 30 in Allen, Hancock, Wyandot, and Crawford Counties, Ohio (4 Folders) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 02-007 35 4/22/1991 A cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Western Portion (Beaverdam, Richland Township, Allen County to C.R. 12, Orange Township, Hancock 1 6/22/2001 12/20/2001 County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Allen, Hancock, and Wyandot Counties (ALL/HAN/WYA/-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360). (1 book) 02-10-013 34 10/28/1992 A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eastern Portion (C.R. 12. Orange Township., Hancock County to T.R. 108, Salem Township, Wyandot 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Allen, Hancock, and Wyandot Counties, Ohio (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360) (5 Folders) 02-10-015 A-1 6/21/1994 Assessment Survey of Eight Prehistoric Archaeological Site Clusters, Six Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Eight Historic Archaeological Sites, and Seven Architectural Locations to 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 be Impacted by the Eastern Portion of Segment II of the Proposed US Route Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D.8360) Hancock and Wyandot Counties, Ohio (Vol I-III) 02-10-015-D 8/26/1992 National Register of Historic Place Eligibility Assessment of the Montgomery Cluster (33 Hk 193 and Hk 194), sites HAN-444-15 and HAN-451-15, and the Tile House Site (HAN- 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 442-15/33 Hk 489) to be Impacted by Section I of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Orange Township, Hancock County, Ohio 02-10-031-2 26 Second Addendum To: A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eastern Portion (C.R. 12, Orange Township, Hancock County, to 1,2 T.R. 108, Salem Township, Wyandot County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Al 03-003 293 Nov-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ASD-42-6.46 Bridge Replacement and Intersection Improvement in Montgomery Township, Ashland County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 03-004 292 4/11/1985 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed STR 655-1565 and CR 775-2785 Bridge Replacement Projects Ashland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 03-009 192 5/27/1994 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-010 193 Nov-94 Results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Gravel Roadway, Parking Lot, and Pedestrian Link at Mohican State Park, Ashland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-013 194 May-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements to the US Route 224 and US Route 250 Intersection (ASD-224-1.445) in Riggles Township, Ashland County, Ohio. 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-015 294 6/26/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the Proposed ASD TR1006-11.20 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Clear Creek Township, Ashland County, 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Ohio 04-001 9/29/1989 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the South Ridge Bridge Project 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 04-002 143 1975 Archaeological Survey of ATB/LAKE S.R. 2; Locational Analysis in the Prehistory of Northeast Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 04-010 144 9/2/1941 An Archaeological Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 05-03-026 36 6/30/1994 Predictive Model and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed U.S. Route 33 Relocation in Athens, Alexander, and Lodi Townships, Athens County, and Bedford Township, Meigs 1 6/22/2001 County, Ohio(3 Folders) 05-03-026-G 9/20/1995 National Register of Historic Eligibility Assessment Survey of Sites 33 At 714,33 At 723,33 At 724, 33 At 740, and 33 Ms 312 to be Impacted by the Proposed Relocation of US Route 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 33 (ATH/MEG-33-19.25/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. No. 10884) in Athens and Meigs Counties, Ohio 05-14-010-A 12 Jan-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Relocation of Route 33 Through Athens and Hocking Counties, Ohio 1,2 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 07-001 125 May-77 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BEL 7-0.00 Project Belmont County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 07-003 124 May-77 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BEL 7-11.89 Project Belmont County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-008 109 12/16/1975 Archaeological Survey of Proposed Interstate 470- Belmont County. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-013 108 Feb-85 A Phase I-III Archaeological Survey of the BEL-148-7.02 Locale (P.F. 1207), Belmont County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-014 107 11/27/1985 A Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Strip Mine Site in Goshen Township, Belmont County. Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-043 110 11/5/1993 A Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of Cultural Resources for the Proposed Harrison- Belmont 250 Corridor Study. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-002 119 Aug-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed State Route 125 Realignments in Brown County, Ohio (BRO 125-12.37/17.78). 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 08-004 118 May-89 An Archaeological Assessment of BRO-353-2.99, Bridge Replacement and Realignment, in Byrd Township, Brown County, Ohio. (P.F. 1278). 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-005 117 12/7/1989 A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Bridge Replacement over White Oak Creek Near Mt. Orab in Brown County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-008 128 Mar-94 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed BRO-763-8.31 (PID 4931) Bridge Replacement and Realignment in Byrd and Huntington Townships, Brown County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-009 127 1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance Maysville-AA Bridge. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 147 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 08-013 126 2000 Phase I History/Architecture Survey and Summary of Archaeological Field Review for the BRO-SR774-6.43 (PID 17905) Bridge Replacement Project in the Clark Township, Brown 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 09-001 136 3/21/1979 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey For the Proposed Relocation of State Route 122 in Butler County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 09-004 134 2/25/1982 Archaeological Survey Report; Transportation Project No. BUT-747/13.78 (P.F. 1408) 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-012 141 Feb-91 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Intersection Improvements in Fairfield, Union, and Liberty Townships, Butler County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 09-015 09- 140 Jul-97 A Phase I Cultural Resource Management Survey for the Proposed 2.57 km (1.6 mi.) Segment of the Cincinnati- Dayton Road Widening in Lemon Township, Butler County, and 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 016 Franklin Township, Warren County, Ohio. And Addendum Report 2 items 09-019 135 Mar-90 An Archaeological Assessment of Two Bridge Replacement Sites (BUT-CR233-5.34 and BUT-CR25-6.80) in St. Clair and Wayne Townships, Butler County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-023 100 2/1/1988 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations of the Hamilton Connector Upgrade Alternative, Butler and Warren Counties. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-031 137 Jan-96 A Phase I Archaeological Survey and History/Architecture Survey of the Proposed State Route 747 Improvement Corridor (BUT-SR747-2.15) in Liberty and Union Townships Butler 1 8/14/2001 County, Ohio 09-032 139 Feb-95 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BUT-CR18-1.23 Intersection Improvement at Princeton and Lesourdsville-West Chester Roads, In Liberty Township, Butler County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio 09-034 138 3/21/1996 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Allen Road and Interstate 75 Interchange in Union Township, Butler County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 10-007 2/19/1994 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location of the East Half of the East Canton to East Liverpool Segment of the Route 30 Highway Improvement Project Carroll and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 Counties, Ohio 11-005 3/7/1996 Documentary Research for the Proposed Highway 68 Cedar Bog Project (CHP-68-2.446(1.52), P.I.D. No. 9927), in Harrison, Concord, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign 3 County, Ohio 11-01110-E 2/24/1997 An Addendum to the Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad 3 River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) 11-014 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 68 Preliminary Development Study Project (CHP-68-2.446 [1.52]) in Concord, 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio 11-014-H Phase I Literature Review and Predictive Model for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 3 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) Appendix E. 11-015 010-I 7/18/1997 Phase I Literature Review and Predictive Model for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 3 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927). 11-02-010-(C-L) 22 12/5/1996 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 1 6/11/2001 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) with Appendix F (two copies) and Figures 2 and 3. 11-02-010-5 8/12/1997 Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 68 Preliminary Development Study Project (CHP-68-2.446 [1.52]) in 3 Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 9927) 11-02-010-F 5/23/1997 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the US Route 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, 3 7/18/2001 Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) 11-02-010-G 3/7/1996 Addendum to Phase I Research for the Proposed Highway 68 Cedar Bog Project (CHP-68-2.446(1.52), P.I.D. No. 9927), in Harrison, Concord, Salem, and Urbana Townships, 3 7/18/2001 Champaign County, Ohio (Maps) 11-11-014-A 21 Dec-96 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the CLA/CHP-68-15.19/0.00 Corridor Study Located in Urbana Township, Champaign County, Ohio (PID 8410) 1,2 7/18/2001 12-004 220 Apr-88 An Archaeological Survey of the Eagle Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-005 221 May-89 An archaeological Survey of the Snider Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-006 222 Aug-90 An Archaeological Survey of the Old Mill Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-009 223 3/16/1992 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey: Proposed Buck Creek Bikeway in the city of Springfield, Springfield Township, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 12-013 May-94 Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Review for the Proposed Bechtle Avenue Extension in Springfield and Moorfield Townships, and the City of Springfield, Clark County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-015 225 Mar-96 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the CLA-54-2.48 (1.54 SLM) Relocation Study Located in Harmony Township, Clark County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-001 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of East Fork Lake, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-003 208 Jun-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Improvement of State Route 32 (CLE-32-10.50/10.52/12.16) Near Williamsburg, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-006 8/16/1993 Phase I and II Archaeological Research for the Proposed I-275 Ramp and Related East Miami Business Center in South Milford, Clermont County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 13-010 206 12/20/1988 Phase I and II Archaeological & Historic Investigation of the Proposed Interchange With Future U.S. 50 and I-275 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-011 205 8/24/1990 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the CLE-132-4.63 (PF 2044) Realignment Project, Ohio Township, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-013 219 Jun-93 An Archaeological Survey of the Revised South Milford Road Bridge Replacement Site in Miami and Union Townships, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-015 207 Mar-91 An Archaeological Assessment of the State Route 28 Improvement Project Area (CLE-28-3.81) Near the Community of Mt. Repose in Miami Township, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-020 12/15/1993 3 9/13/2001 13-023 196 2/16/1995 Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations For the Proposed Blue Sky Park Road Bridge Replacement Project, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-026 195 Mar-98 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Bridge Replacement, Stonelick-Williams Corner Road, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 148 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 14-001 295 11/5/1976 An Archaeological Survey of the New Burlington Road Relocation Project Clinton County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 14-002 296 10/27/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey: County Road 29 Bridge Replacement, Clark Township, Clinton County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 14-003 297 11/11/1997 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Realignment of County Road 5 and the Replacement of the Existing Bridge Across Anderson Fork in Chester 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Clinton County, Ohio 14-008 10/29/1999 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of a Proposed Ohio Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement and Roadway Realignment Project Along State Route 28, Harlan 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Warren County, and Marion Township, Clinton County, Ohio 15-17-010-B 11/16/1998 A Phase II Architectural Assessment Survey of Eight Properties in Conjunction with the Proposed U.S. Route 30 Road Improvement Project in Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 Counties, Ohio (2 copies) 16-001 152 7/15/1986 A Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Simco Mining Tract, Linton Township, Coshocton County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 16-002 150 Sep-88 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Proposed COS-751-3.72 Realignment in Oxford Township, Coshocton County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 16-004 123 1/6/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Coshocton County Road 271 Bridge Replacement in Franklin Township, Coshocton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 16-008 122 Jul-94 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations For the COS-US36-20.48 Highway Redevelopment Project Through Keene, Lafayette, Oxford and Tuscarawas Townships, Coshocton 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio. 16-010 120 1/25/1995 Phase I Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Township Roads 364 Bridge Replacement Across the Mohican River in Tiverton Township, Coshocton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 16-015 121 Aug-95 Cultural Resources Investigations for the COS-751-4.70 Bridge Replacement Project in Oxford Township, Coshocton County, Ohio (PID 11485). 1,2 8/14/2001 17-010 7/15/1977 Historic/Architectural Survey & Report for CRA/RIC-30-9.83/0.00 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 17-012 24 Jul-78 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 30 in Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (CRA/RIC-30-9,83/0.00) (2 books) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 17-016 23 11/7/1996 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 30 through Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (10 items) 1 6/22/2001 8/14/2001 17-026 4/20/1998 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies of Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Two Historic Archaeological Sites to be Impacted by the Proposed limited Access Right-of Way of the 3 7/18/2001 U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (CRA\RIC-30-9.91/9.00; P.I.D. No. 10762) 17-028 2/25/1999 Boundary Delineation and Application of the Criteria of Effect for CRA-10-13, CRA-633-14, CRA-643-14, and Addition Investigation for CRA-620-13, CRA-644-14, CRA-687-15, 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 CRA-689-15, RIC-676-9 17-07-012-A Dec. 1989 An Archaeological Assessment of CRA-30-13.53 Bridge Replacement in Whetstone Township and CRA-30-16.62 Bridge Replacement in Jefferson Township, In Crawford County, 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Ohio. (P.F. 1350) (1 book) 17-13-010-A 5/7/1993 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Wyandot and Crawford Counties, Ohio 3 6/11/2001 5/7/2002 17-13-010-B 11/27/1995 Research Proposal for Data Recovery at Sites 33 Wy 674 and 783 for the proposed limited access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford 3 6/11/2001 7/18/2001 Counties, Ohio 18-012 7/23/1991 A Phase I Investigation for the Proposed I-271/480, Harvard Road and Richmond Widening in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 18-028 148 7/16/1993 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed Widening of Royalton and Pearl Roads, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 18-038 10/3/1995 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Widening of a 518 Meter Section of Cedar Road, Orange Township, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 18-045 146 Jul-95 Phase I -Cultural Resources Report; Literature Search and Field Survey 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 18-60 145 10/23/1997 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed CUY-Aerospace Parkway Project City of Brook Park, Olmsted and Middleburg Townships, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 19-001 96 Sep-77 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Right of Way For the Extension of U.S. Route 36, Darke County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 20-002 157 1/5/1979 Archaeological Survey Report For the Proposed DEF 18-13.07/15.55 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 20-006 156 1/12/1993 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the County Road 42 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Noble Townships, Defiance County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 20-009 155 Sep-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed DEF-CD140-13.196 Bridge Replace in Washington Township, Defiance County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-004 95 5/30/1986 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of a 345 KV Ohio Edison Double Circuit Transmission Line (Hyatt-Tangy/Marysville-Tangy_ in Delaware and Liberty Townships, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Delaware County, Ohio. 21-008 7/29/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed I-71 Interchange in Orange Township, Delaware County, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-009 153 6/2/1989 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Connector Road For a Proposed I-71 Interchange in Orange Township, Delaware County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 21-014 151 8/27/1993 Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Cleveland Avenue and Maxtown Road Extension Alternates in Sharn and Blendon Townships, Franklin 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 County, and Orange and Genoa Townships, Delaware County, Ohio 21-022 105 9/10/1999 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Improvements to DEL-745-1.078 (PID#16465) State Route 745 and Glick Road Intersection, Concord Township, Delaware County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 22-002 299 Jul-81 The Preliminary Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements to US Route 250 in Erie County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 22-009 298 Jan-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ERI-River Road Reconstruction Located in Huron Township, Erie County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 23-001 14 Sep-82 The Phase I and II Archaeological and Historic / Architectural Survey of the Preferred Alignment for the Lancaster Bypass (FAI-33-11.22 [P.F. 626]) Fairfield County, Ohio 1,2 6/11/2001 7/18/2001 23-023 Nov-94 Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Search for the FAI-33-0.00/1.20 Corridor Study Located in Bloom, Greenfield, Hocking and Violet Townships, Fairfield County and Madison 3 6/11/2001 Township, Franklin County (PID 13281) 23-024 19 Dec-94 Archaeological Investigation of the FAI-33-1.20/Diley Road Interchange in Violet Township, Fairfield County, Ohio (PID 13281) 1,2 6/11/2001 149 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 23-035a 7 7/28/1998 Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 1 5/1/2001 12/20/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 23-035b Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 12/20/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D, Tables D-1-D-3) 23-039 8/20/1998 Addendum to Phase I Resources Survey for FAI-U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 P.I.D. No. 12613 in Greenfield and Hocking Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (2 copies) 3 7/18/2001 23-046 20 Dec-00 Addendum Archaeological Investigation of the FAI-33-1.20/Diley Road Interchange in Violet Township, Fairfield County, Ohio (PID 13281) 1 6/11/2001 24-001 43 4/25/1979 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.s. Route 35 By-pass through Fayette and Ross Counties, Ohio (FAY/Ross 35-17.54/0.00) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 24-008 61 Jul-98 An Archaeological Survey of a Design Area for the Proposed Modification of the I-71 Rest Areas (FAY-71-5.75) in Jefferson Township, Fayette County, Ohio. (P.F. 1681) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 25-002 106 Jul-78 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Relocation of Hayden Run Road Franklin County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-003 77 6/12/1979 Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project FRA CR 52, Fishinger Road Sec. .00-.59 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-005 99 1/30/1972 Archaeological Survey Report FRA CR 140 Kropp Road 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-012 98 5/8/1978 Preliminary Archaeological Survey for the I-670 Freeway and Airport Connector 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-016 97 1/8/1981 Franklin and Madison Counties, Ohio Archaeological Survey Scioto Darby Creek Road Price- Hilliards Road over Big Darby Creek. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-019 69 9/10/1981 Sawmill Road Archaeological Survey From Henderson Road to Billingsley Road City of Columbus. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-027 70 Apr-86 Preliminary Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Norton Road Expansion Corridor in Darbydale, Franklin County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-028 71 3/6/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Interstate 270 Interchanges at Tuttle and Hayden Run Roads In Western Franklin County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 25-038 85 11/16/1990 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed State Route 161 Realignment Through Blendon and Plain Townships, Franklin County, Ohio (FRA- 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 161-16.75) 25-042 86 11/14/1990 An Archaeological Literature Review and Survey: Proposed Olentangy River Bicycle Path in the City of Columbus, Clinton Township, Franklin County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-046 87 7/30/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Improvements along Stelzer Road from Morse Road to Interstate 670 in Blendon and Mifflin Townships, Franklin 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 25-085 7/28/1997 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed FRA- Hard Road Improvement Widening and Grade Separation with the CSX Railroad Improvement project, Perry and 3 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 Sharon Townships, Franklin County, Ohio 27-001 48 Dec-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 35 between Ballipolis and Thurman (Centerville) in Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-1.03/3.79/8.33) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-002 51 Additional Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen in Springfield Township, Gallia County, Ohio (PID 1,2 11533). 27-003A Mar-80 Intensive Sampling of Selected Portions of the Proposed 4-Lane Development, U.S. Route 35, Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-01.03/03.79/08.33) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-003B Mar-80 Intensive Sampling of Selected Portions of the Proposed 4-Lane Development, U.S. Route 35, Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-01.03/03.79/08.33) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-008 52 Oct-88 An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed GAL-7-26.47 Strom Sewer Alignment in Addison Township, Gallia County, Ohio (P.F. 1207) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-012 7/26/1990 Management Summary: Fieldwork at the Stowers I and Stowers II Sites 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-012.1 Mar-90 Summary of Cultural Resource Management Investigations at Archaeological Sites 33GA48 (Stowers I) and 33GA49 (Stowers II), highway Corridor GAL-35-03.79 (PID 5301), 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Gallia County, Ohio 27-015 4/25/1991 The Stowers Sites: Two Early Archaic Camps Along Raccoon creek in Raccoon Township Gallia County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-019 62 Jan-94 Archaeological Investigation of the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen, in Springfield township, Gallia County, Ohio P.I.D. 11533 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-021 Feb-96 Detailed Archaeological Examination of Three Prehistoric Sites (33GA254, 255 and 277) Impacted by the Proposed GAL-850-2.78 Project (PID 11533) in Springfield Township, 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Gallia County, Ohio 27-022 May-96 Additional Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen in Springfield Township, Gallia County, Ohio (PID 11533). 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-023 Mar-81 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of State Route 160Between Kemper Hillow Road and Bulaville Porter Road (GAL-US. 35.S.R. 160--08.22/02.81) Appendices G 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 28-001 301 Jul-79 Archaeological Survey Report GEA-322-0.59 GEA-306-11.89 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 28-002 Aug-80 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Geauga County Service Garage Construction Area 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 29-003 May-80 Phase III Investigations of Archaeological Sited to be Affected by Proposed Route 35 through Green and Fayette Counties, Ohio Gre/Fay-35-14.89/00.00 (PF 398) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 29-006 8/12/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-675 By-Pass Near Dayton, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 29-010 60 11/16/1976 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.S. 35 By-Pass in Greene and Fayette Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 30-030 177 Sep-95 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed GUE-146-3.66 (PID 8843) Bridge Replacement in Spencer Township, Guernsey County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 31-002 176 Sep-85 An Archaeological Assessment (Phase I and II) of Proposed Improvements to the Gilmore Road/I-275 Interchange in Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 31-004 169 9/2/1987 Cultural Resources Survey of: Vine Street Bridge Over the Mill Creek S.F.N. 3100510 Northbend Bridge over the Mill Creek S.F.N. 3137120 Seymour Avenue Bridge over the Mill 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Creek S.F.N. 3136914 Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. 31-006 175 5/27/1989 An Assessment of the Cultural Resources Impact of the Proposed Lawrenceburg Road Improvement Hamilton County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 31-014 170 Jun-78 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Queen City Avenue Improvement Project. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 31-020.B 6/24/1987 Hopple Street Project Meeker Street to I-75 Cincinnati, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 31-022 167 Jul-96 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey of a Bridge Construction Project in new Baltimore. Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 150 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 31-26 4/25/1997 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Ohio Department of Transportation's HAM/WAR-US22/3-16.15/0.00 Project, Sycamore and Symmes Townships, Hamilton County, 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 and Deerfield Township, Warren County, Ohio. 32-004 8/26/1992 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment of the Montgomery Cluster (33 HK 193 nd 33 Hk 194), Sites HAN-444-15 and HAN-451-15, and the Tile House Site 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 (HAN-442-15/33 Hk 489) to be Impacted by Section I of the Proposed US 30 Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Orange Township, Hancock County, Ohio 32-007 28 2/15/1996 Phase I Deep Testing on the Floodplain of the Blachard River and Tymochtee Creek for Project II of Segment II of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project (ALL/HAN/WAY 30- 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Delaware Township, Hancock County, and Salem Township, Wyandot County, Ohio (1 book) 33-001 6/23/1988 A Report of Phase I Cultural Resource Investiongations of the Proposed Mt. Victory/East Liberty Pipeline Hardin and Logan Counties, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 35-002 304 12/23/1983 Phase I/II Archaeological Survey for Relocated SR 110, Damascus Township, Henry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 35-007 305 12/23/1992 A Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed US Route 6/24 and Industrial Drive Interchange Near Napoleon in Liberty and Napoleon Townships, Henry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 35-012 306 3/7/1995 Literature Review, Reconnaissance Survey, and Architectural Documentation for the Napoleon Bridge Replacement Over the Maumee River on State Route 108 in Napoleon 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Henry County, Ohio 36-005 311 10/15/1990 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for Bridge Replacement HIG-C.R. 20-8.39 in Hamer and White Oak Townships, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-006 309 May-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for County BR. HIG CR4-5.79 Brush CR. TWP., Hightland County Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-007 308 May-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for County Br. HIG CR10-1.00 Liberty Township, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-009 310 Apr-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the County Bridge HIG C.R. 13-1.40 in Clay Township, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 37.005.1 Mar-81 Archaeological Assessment of Six Sites in the Central Hocking River valley for the Proposed Relocation of Route 33 through Athens and Hocking Counties, Ohio (HOC/ATH-33- 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 14.87/ 16.82/00.00/02.00/03.80) (volumes 1 and 2) 37-020 9 12/10/1996 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, Athens 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) 40-004 25 Dec. 1982 Phase I and II archaeological And History / Architecture Survey for the Proposed U.S. Route 35 Bypass around Jackson, Jackson County, Ohio (JAC-35-09.55) (1 Book) 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-004.1 May-84 Addendum to JAC 35 Report Evaluation of the Mather Site 33 JA63 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 40-008 30 Apr-94 Summary of Archaeological Investigations Along The Proposed Improvement of U.S. 35 In Liberty and Jackson Township. Jackson County, Ohio. (JAC-35-1.68 -- PID. 7890) (1 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 book) 40-010 6/6/1994 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Roadway At the Sarah James Corporate Park Lick Township, Jackson County, Ohio (35-14.88) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-012 6/6/1994 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Roadway at the Sarah James Corporate Park, Lick Township Jackson county, Ohio (35-14.88) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 40-013 Mar-95 Cultural Resources literature Search for the Proposed JAC-CR9-0.00 (Extension)/Sarah James Corporate Park Access, In Lick Township, Jackson County, Ohio (PID 7569) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-015 Dec. 1998 Summary of Archaeological Investigations At the Proposed Route 32/327 Interchange and County Road 88 Relocation Project In Milton Township, Jackson County, Ohio. (Jac-32- 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 17.16 -- PID 13386) (JAC-CR 88-0.00 -- PID 18045) (1 Book) 41-001 312 12/28/1976 Preliminary Archaeological and Architectural Survey of the Proposed US Route 22, Jefferston County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 41-008 313 3/26/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Alignment of the Intersection of Wilson Avenue and Montgomery Lane in Mingo Junction, Jefferson County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 41-011 314 9/8/1997 Phase I Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Widening of a Portion of Sunset Boulevard, Within the City of Steubenville, Jefferson County, 1 9/13/2001 Ohio 42-002 103 7/27/1979 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of Two Bridge Replacement Sites in Knox County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-005 104 Jul-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Improvement of Knox County Road 31 (PF-KNO-015) 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-011 80 1/3/1992 A Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Knox County Road 54 (Big Run Road) Realignment and Bridge Replacement in College Township, Knox County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio 42-012 79 9/9/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Knox County Road 9 Bridge Replacement, Howard-Danville Road, Howard Township, Knox County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-013 81 1/14/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Knox County Road 33 Bridge Replacement over the Kokosing River, College and Harrison Townships, Knox County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio. 42-018 83 6/7/1996 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of County Road 6 Located near Fredericktown, in Morris Township, Knox County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-019 82 3/29/1995 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the County Road 77 Bridge Over Mohican River (PID# 9845) in Jefferson Township, Knox 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 42-020 84 7/17/1996 Phase I Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Road Alignment and Bridge Replacement (KNO-TR401-2.78; P.I.D. No. 14351) on Beckley 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Road in Morris Township, Knox County, Ohio 44-003 315 10/22/1984 Phase I and II Literature Search and Location Survey of the Proposed Bridge Project Area, LAW CR104-0.00, P.F. LAW013 Lawrence County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 44-010 316 Jun-90 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Lawrence County Road 29 Improvement in Aid and Elizabeth Township, Lawrence County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 44-021 317 Dec-99 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the LAW-7-9.929 Road Improvements in Union and Rome Townships, Lawrence County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 44-22 4/1/2001 3 9/13/2001 45-004 285 6/16/1977 Archaeological Survey Report LIC-Jo Ann Road Newark, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 151 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 45-005 A Historic/Prehistoric Survey for Jo Ann Road, City of Newark, Licking County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-008 Jan-79 An Archaeological Survey of the Licking County Park and Recreation Tract, Union Township, Licking County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-014 287 5/16/1990 A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Broad Street Widening from Blacklick Creek, Jefferson Township, Franklin County, to Taylor 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Road, Lima Township, Licking County, Ohio 45-017 307 Sep-91 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Segment of State Route 157 in Union Township, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-018 289 Sep-91 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Resources Survey for Proposed Improvements to State Route 79 in Newark and Union Townships, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-024 288 Sep-93 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed LIC-IR 70-16.00 Interchange Improvements at SR 13 in Licking Township, Licking County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-026 270 Sep-93 A Cultural Resources Survey of the LIC-13-6.37 Intersection Improvement Project, Licking Township Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-51 290 1/22/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the LIC-668-0.50 Proposed Road Widening Project, Bowling Green Township, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 47-001 94 Feb-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed State Route 20 By-Pass Near Elria, Lorain County, Ohio (LOR-20-15.99) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 47-004 93 2/7/1980 A Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Improvement of Colorado Avenue in the City of Lorain, Lorain Co. Ohio (LOR-611-4.38) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 47-005 91 1/31/1979 The Archaeological Resources Within The Proposed Industrial Parkway West Project, City of Elyria, Lorain County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 47-015 92 11/11/1993 A Phase I and II Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed LOR-254-0.89 Bridge Replacement Project Sheffield Township, Lorain County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 47-020 May-98 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Oak Point Road Improvement Project, Black River Township, Lorain County, Ohio. 3 8/14/2001 47-022 Jan-01 Phase I Resource Survey (Short Report Format) for the Proposed Intersection Improvement to State Route 113 and Oberlin Road LOR-113-8.21 (PID 18233) Amherst Township, 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Lorain County, Ohio. 47-23 88 May-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements Along State Route 58 (LOR-58-26.570) and State Route 511 (LOR-511-21.581/34.021 and LOR-511A-0.000) in 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Amhurst, Camden, Henrietta, and Russia Townships, Lorain County, Ohio (PID 21439). 48-001 Oct-79 Ohio Department of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Services Cultural Resource Survey Report Project No.LUC 2-11.82/13.91 P.F. 537 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-015 Nov-92 Phase III Assessment of Selected Archaeological Resources Along the Preferred Alternate of S.R. 2 in Lucas, Ottawa, and Wood counties, Ohio (PID# 6515) Vol.I 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-015.1 Nov-92 Phase III Assessment of Selected Archaeological Resources Along the Preferred Alternate of S.R. 2 in Lucas, Ottawa, and Wood counties, Ohio (PID# 6515) Vol.II 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-018 278 5/27/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed LUC University/Parks Trail, Elks Realignment Bike Path in the City of Toledo, Sylvania Township, Lucas County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 48-020 279 9/12/1994 An Archaeological Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington Street Bridge Replacement in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 48-027 280 10/24/1996 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of the Seaman Street/ Norfolk Southern Grade Separation in Oregon Township, Lucas County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 48-029 281 1/27/1997 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of County Road 136 Bridge No. 790 in Waterville Township, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 48-031 282 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvements to Airport Highway in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 48-035 Dec-87 State Route 2 Western Basin Cultural Resource Assessment Lucas-Wood-Ottawa Counties, Ohio (PF 1247) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-47 283 4/1/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge Rehabilitation Project Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 50-004 269 7/24/1986 Phase I and II Archaeological Surveys of Two Bridge Replacement Projects in Mahoning County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 50-016 10/1/1993 Center Street Bridge Replacement Project Youngstown, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 50-017 267 Feb-95 Cultural Resources Survey MAH 80-3.81 (I-80/SR 46 Interchange) PID #9016 Austintown Township, Mahoning County 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 50-043 277 Sep-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the proposed Improvements to State Route 534 and County Road 20 in Goshen Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 51-001 272 9/12/1980 Cultural Resource Survey Report 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 51-002 271 Jul-84 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of Marion County Road 27 J. Bridge Replacement 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 51-004 291 6/16/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Crawford-Marion Line Road Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Grand Prairie Township, Marion County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 51-005 273 3/6/1998 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Marion Dual Rail Industrial Park Access Road and Improvements to Marion-Williamsport Road, Marion 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Township, Marion County, Ohio 51-007 274 Mar-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey forr the Marion County Garage Tract ( Mar-County Garage) Located in Marion Township, Marion County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 52-004 276 3/20/1989 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the MED-94-12.66 Bridge Replacement Project, Granger Township, Medina County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 52-007 275 Dec-89 A Cultural Resources survey and Evaluation of the MED-18-25.878 (SLK) / 16.08 (SLM) (PID 4082) Ridge Rd. Extension Project, Granger and Sharon Townships, Medina County, 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 53-026 13 12/18/1997 Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (1 + MAPS) 53-028 11/7/1997 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (1 of 2) 54-005 262 12/15/1993 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for Six Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Washington and Recovery Townships, Mercer County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 54-006 259 Nov-98 A Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Coldwater Creek Road Bridge Replacement, Mercer County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-001 Jul-78 Bridge Replacement SR 55 Miami County 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-003 264 11/15/1977 Archaeological Survey Report Bureau of Environmental Services MIA 571-6.43 1 9/13/2001 55-006 265 11/29/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Widening of Looney Road and County Road 25A Improvements in Piqua, Spring Creek Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 152 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 55-026 258 Jun-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements Along Route 36 in Spring Creek Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-17 266 Apr-00 Literature Review and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the MIA-41-6.26 Bridge Replacement in Staunton and Elizabeth Townships, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-19 260 5/31/2001 Summery of Cultural Resources field review in Monroe Monroe Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-21 261 2/20/2001 Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the MIA-CR9-17.13 (PID22242) Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Newberry Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 56-001 172 Jan-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Monroe County Road 81. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 56-002 163 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Hune Bridge and Ring Mill Canoe Access Road Areas on the Little Muskingum River in the Wayne National Forest. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-002 162 Aug-80 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Chautauqua Road Bridge Replacement. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-003 161 8/12/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-675 By-Pass Near Dayton, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-012 160 6/25/1984 Archaeological Investigations of the Proposed U.S. Route 35 Parkway Alignment (MOT-35-9.21) Project Montgomery County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 57-016 159 Dec-84 An Archaeological Survey of the Dog Leg Road Realignment, Montgomery County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-019 2/5/1987 Archaeological Resource Report For the Proposed Trotwood Connector and Turner Road Extension in Montgomery County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 57-046 178 1/19/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Improvement of Linden Avenue (Xenia Pike) in Montgomery County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-047 166 6/14/1995 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Alexandersville-Bellbrook Road (State Route 725) Reconstruction and Widening Project in the City of Centerville, Washington 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Township, Montgomery County, and Sugar Creek Township, Greene County, Ohio. 58-002 197 Jul-85 Preliminary Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed MRG-266-4.21 Bridge Replacement Project Over the Muskingum River at the Village of Stockport, Morgan County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-005 198 Jun-95 Cultural Resources Investigation of the MRG-376-0.00 Slip Repair project along the Muskingum River in Windsor Township, Morgan County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-006 201 3/1/1996 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey for the Proposed State Route 669 Bridge Realignment in York Township, Morgan County, and Harrison Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 58-008 200 May-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Morgan County Garage Tract Located in Morgan Township, Morgan County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 59-001 203 11/25/1979 Archaeological Survey Report State and Douglas Connector Mt. Gilead, Morrow County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 59-003 204 9/16/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Morrow County Road 9 Improvement in Cardington and Gilead Townships, Morrow County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 59-004 202 12/1/1998 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed MRW-42-14.835 (9.22 SLM), PID 16698, Bridge Replacement Over Whetstone Creek in Cardington Township, Morrow County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio. 60.03.1 Jan-80 Cultural Resource Survey Report MUS-208-0.47 (PF 722) 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-003 165 4/8/1982 MUS-208-0.47 Village of Dresden Muskingum County, Ohio Environmental Assessment. 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 60-007 164 6/20/1986 A Phase I and II Archaeological Resources Survey for the Proposed MUS C.R. 719 Extension in Zanesville, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-014 31 4/30/1993 Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Relocation of a Section of State Route 60 in Falls and Muskingum Townships, Muskingum County, 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Ohio (1 book) 60-015 174 7/2/1993 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey: Proposed Symmes Creek Bridge Replacement in Madison Township, Muskingum County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-017 8/30/1994 Phase III Assessment of Sites 33 Mud 525 and 33 Mu 529 for the Proposed Route 60 Relocation in Muskingum County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 60-018 173 Nov-94 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed MUS-93-28.24 (PID 12946) Bridge Replacement in Monroe Township, Muskingum County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-028 Nov-94 Cultural Resource Literature Search for the Proposed MUS-60-17.88 Corridor from Zanesville to Dresden, Ohio (PID 12141) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 60-030 29 Feb. 1998 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the MUS-60-21.47 Project Located in Falls and Muskingum Townships, Muskingum County, Ohio (PID 12137) (1 book) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 61-002 189 Jun-95 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Improvement of NOB-78-8.90 Across Sharon and Olive Township, Noble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 62-011 5/24/1995 Literature Review of the Proposed Road Improvement OTT-163-21.89 in Ottawa County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 64-003 191 7/13/1989 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey: Proposed County Road #34 Bridge Replacement, Madison Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 64-004 12/21/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Perry County Bikeway in Thorn, Hopewell, Reading, Jackson, Pike, and Salt Lick Townships, Perry County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 64-007 184 Feb-95 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed PER-555-2.65 & 2.73 (PID 13510&13511) Bridge Replacements and Road Realignment in Bearfield Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-001 186 7/26/1977 Archaeological Survey Report PIC-104-3.34/3.82 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-002 185 Aug-79 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed State Route 762 Relocation Corridor near Harrisburg in Pickaway County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-004 187 8/6/1979 PIC 104-3.38/3.82 Cultural Resource Survey Report: A-Reevaluation 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 65-010 179 4/5/1995 Slate Run Metro Park Farm Connector Road, Madison Township, Pickaway County, Ohio: Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-011 188 Jan-97 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed PIC-CR7-9.815 (PID 15590) Road Widening in Madison and Walnut Townships, Pickaway County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-15 180 12/3/1999 Cultural Resources Literature Review, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Ecological Assessment of a Proposed Project Area in South Bloomfield, Pickaway County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-008 216 Sep-92 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations Along the Proposed Widening of Pike U.S. 23-5.23 in Pee Pee and Seal Townships, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 66-012 217 Sep-93 Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Survey for Pike County Bridge PIK-65-3.27 Union Township, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-019 181 Mar-94 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for County Bridge PIK T.R. 240-0010 in Benton Township, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-020 182 Mar-95 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for County Bridge PIK C.R. 27-0667 in Sunfish Township Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 153 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 66-024 183 Dec-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Report of PIK-CR3-0.00 (PID 17178) Morgans Fork Road Improvement and PIK-CR3-s.os (PID 20388) Bridge Replacement Project, Benton Township, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Pike County, Ohio 66-04(I &II) 218 Jul-88 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Power Plant Site Near Omega, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 67-002 209 Oct-79 Archaeological Survey Report POR-Summit St. P.F. POR-022 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-004 9/10/1982 Results of Preliminary Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey of the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-005 4/30/1987 Phase I Archaeological Investigations at the Michael J. Kirwan Dam and Reservoir Portage County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 67-006 Mar-90 Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance in the University Town Center Mall Project Area, Kent, Portage County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-014 212 2/16/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the POR-43-12.72/18.44 Road Widening Project in the City of Streetboro, Portage County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-16 214 6/12/2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the West Branch State Park Campground Improvement Project in Charleston Township, Portage County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-17(012) 213 1/9/2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Improvement to the Intersection of S.R. 306 and Treat Road (PID 22961) in the Sity of Aurora, Portage County, Ohio (II Copies) 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-002 242 11/20/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed County Road 15 Realignment and Bridge Bypass near Lewisburg, Harrison Township Preble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-003 241 Dec-97 A Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation of the PRE-SR-355-0.113 Fort St. Clair Bridge Replacement Project, Washington Township, Preble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-004 5/28/1999 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 70-015 53 Jun-89 An Archaeological Survey of the Design Alternatives for the Proposed I-71/S.R. 39 Interchange in Madison Township, Richland County, Ohio. (P.F. 1681) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-015 44 12/7/1988 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the ROS-35-33.14 Realignment Project, Ross County, Ohio (PF 1295) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-023 4/13/1993 Literature Review for the Preliminary Alternative Phase of the U.S.Route 35 Relocation/ Expansion (ROS-35-26.22) Through Portions of Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 County, Ohio 71-029 7/12/1999 Literature Review for the Preliminary Alternative Phase of the U.S. Route 35 Relocation/ Expansion (ROS-35-26.22) Through Portions of Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross 3 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 County, Ohio 71-030 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices C-E 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-032 12/15/1995 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio (2 copies) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-033 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices C-E 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-034 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices B 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-034 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices B 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 72-001 130 Jul-80 Dobe Bridge, Country Road 35 - Township Road 201 Archaeological Survey Fremont (Sandusky County), Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 72-002 129 11/13/1980 Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project No. SAN-412/1.10 P.F. 673 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 72-004 131 Jul-83 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Gibsonburg, Ohio Sewer, Sandusky County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 72-008 6/20/1991 A Phase I (Literature Review) Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed SAN-53-10.15 Highway Improvement Project Sandusky Township, Sandusky County, Ohio. 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 72-011 115 7/19/1993 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed SAN-53-10.15 Highway Improvement Project in Sandusky Township, Sandusky County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 73-002 234 Jan-80 Preliminary Archaeological Investigation Along the Alternate 7 Access for the Proposed Portsmouth Bridge in Scioto County, Ohio SCI 23-00.00 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 73-007 239 4/8/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "B" 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 73-010 238 12/15/1978 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Portsmouth Bridge, Scioto County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 73-39 235 Jul-01 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the proposed SCI-52-1.28 Bridge Replacement Project Located in Nile Township, Scioto County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 74-001 236 Jan-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 23 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-002 240 5/26/1977 Archaeological Survey SEN-Jones Road 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-011 3/17/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eden Township Road 58 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Eden Township, Ceneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-012 5/6/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Seneca County Road 16 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Eden Township, Seneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-013 227 11/22/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Seneca County Road 19 Bridge Replacement in Clinton and Hopewell Townships, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-014 251 12/14/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Seneca County Road 36 Bridge Replacement in Clinton Township, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-016 5/25/1990 A Phase I (Literature Review) Archaeological Survey of the C.R. 51 Bridge Replacement Project Old Fort, Seneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-20 237 Jul-01 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed Grade Separation on SEN-TR43-0.00 in Loudon Township, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 76-020 11/12/1993 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Using the Western Division sample Area STA/COL - 30-8.35/0.00, in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark 3 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Counties, Ohio 76-021 2/19/1994 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the East Half of the East Canton to East Liverpool Segment of the Route 30 Highway Improvement Project Carroll and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Counties, Ohio (2copies) 76-022 7/12/1994 An Evaluation of a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Western Division of the Stark/Columbiana/Carroll Counties (STA/COL-030-18.35/0.00) Route 30 Study Area 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 154 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 76-023 4 2/7/1995 Literature Review and Reconnaissance of a 1.35 Mi (2.16 Km) Section of U.S. Route 30 between Belden Ave. and Trump Rd. in Canton Township, Stark County, Ohio (2 BOOKS) 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 76-024 8/11/1994 Management Summary of the Literature Review Update and Phase II Cultural Resources Survey of the U.S. Route 30 (STA/COL 30) Belden Ave. to Trump Ave., Stark County, OH. 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 76-025 Aug-93 A Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 76-026 Aug-93 A Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area (Revised 1994) 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 76-034 11/12/1993 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Using the Western Division sample Area STA/COL - 30-8.35/0.00, in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Counties, Ohio 76-035 3 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-035 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-036 2 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 1 4/19/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. 76-037 5 12/13/1995 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of Proposed Support Areas for the Route 30 STA/COL - 30 - 18.35/0.00 Alternatives Eastern Segment, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, 1 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Ohio Vol. 1 76-039 9/20/1994 Management Summary Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the proposed Route 30 Alternatives Western and Eastern Segments Stark, Carroll and Columbiana Counties Ohio 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 76-040 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E 76-040 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E (cont'd) 76-041 9/20/1994 Management Summary Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the proposed Route 30 Alternatives Western and Eastern Segments Stark, Carroll and Columbiana Counties Ohio 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 (2copies) 76-042 7/11/1996 Addendum to the Phase I Architectural Resource Survey for the Proposed U.S. Route 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, Paris, and Sandy Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio 76-043 Dec-97 Detailed Examination of Historic Archaeological Resources and the Determination of Potential Highway Impacts to 18th Century Resources by the Construction of STA-COL 30- 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 18.35/ 0.00 (PID10748) in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark Counties, Ohio (2 copies) 76-044 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-045 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix B, C and D 76-045 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E 76-206 Aug-93 Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 77-003 254 7/14/1977 Archaeological Survey Report SUM- HOWE Road 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-003 7/14/1977 Archaeological Survey Report SUM- HOWE Road 3 9/13/2001 77-007 243 Oct-85 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Road Development and Interchange Modifications, SUM 77/18-23.21/1.55, Copley Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-011 255 10/2/1990 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Portage Path Bridge Replacement Project and Pavement Widening in Northhampton and Portage Townships, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-014 250 11/20/1991 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Widening of Fishcreek Road in Stow Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-015 2/6/1991 A Phase I literature Search for the Proposed Cleveland-Massilon Road Rerouting Project City of Fairlawn, Summit County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-025 2/12/1990 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed West Market Street Improvement Project, The City of Akron, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-026 253 2/12/1993 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Interchange at State Route 8 and Seqasons Road in Stow Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-069 228 10/31/1996 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Ohio Turnpike (I-80)/ Interstate 77 Interchange Project Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio 1,2 3/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-94 8/17/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the SUM-High/Broadway Improvements Project Viaduct Replacement Project City of Akron, Summit County 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 78-003 114 6/9/1981 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Custer Orangeville Road Bridge Replacement Project. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 78-010 113 Jan-84 Results of a Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Shortfield Takeoff and Landing Zone, and Proposed Relocation of Ridge Road at the Youngstown Municipal Airport, Vienna 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Township, Trumbull County, Ohio. 78-022 112 7/7/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Area to be Impacted by the Replacement of the Belmont Avenue Bridge in the City of Niles, Weathersfield Township, Trumbull 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio. 78-027 111 Feb-99 Phase I Field Review and Archaeological Resources Survey for the TRU-46-20.599 Intersection Widening in Bazetta Township, Trumbull County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 79-001 245 Sep-79 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Improvement of S.R. 212 in Tuscarawas and Carroll Counties, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 155 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 79-002 244 Feb-79 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Realignment of Route 250 and 800 near Dennison, Tuscarawas County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 79-010 252 Jan-93 Archaeological Investigations and Interpretation Along the TUS-Reiser Avenue Extension Near New Philadelphia, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 80-003 10 Apr-84 Archaeological Survey Report for Transportation Project No, UNI/LOG 33-22.54/0.00 in Union and Logan Counties, Ohio Vols. 1 and 2. 1,2 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 81-003 133 1/20/1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Little Auglaize River Watershed, Van Wert, Paulding, and Putnum Counties. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 82-001 58 11/10/1987 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed VIN-50-04.71 Realignment in Harrison Township, Vinton county, Ohio. (P.F. 922) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-009 56 Sep-92 A Cultural Resources Survey of the VIN-50-8.07 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment Project, Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio (PID 5213) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-011 Feb-97 A Phase III Cultural Resources Assessment of Sites #33-VI-391, 33-VI-392, 33-VI-393, 33-VI-394 and 33-VI-395 for the VIN-50-8.07 (PID 5213) Bridge Replacement and Road 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Realignment Project, Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio 82-012 Dec-98 Project Vin-50-27.885 (P.I.D 10537): Evaluation of a Small R/W Take from Old McAruthur Cemetery, Elk Township, Vinton County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-013 8/13/1998 Geophysical Survey Elk Township Cemetery, Mcarthur, Ohio, Vinton County VIN-50-27.885, P.I.D. # 10537 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 83-016 132 Oct-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the WAR SR48-21.17 Bridge Replacement Project Located in Clear Creek Township, Warren County, Ohio (PID 5889). 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 83-024 78 2/28/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of a Proposed Ohio Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement and Roadway Improvement Project (WAR-132-16.033; PID 11258) 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 Along State Road 132, Warren County, Ohio. 84-026 45 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-026.2 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio, Vol. 1 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-026.3 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio Vol.II 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-032 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) (appendices B-H) 84-032 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) 84-033 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) (appendix A included) 85-001 18 Feb-82 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Alternate Alignments A and B Associated with the Proposed Construction of U.S. Route 30, East of Wooster, Ohio (WAY-30-11.88) 1,2 6/11/2001 85-009 9/5/1977 Historic/Architectural Survey and Report for WAY-30-11.88/18.34 3 6/11/2001 85-013 10/5/1994 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume I -Report) 3 6/11/2001 85-013 8/7/2001 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume II--Appendices A and B) 3 6/11/2001 85-013 8/7/2001 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume III--Appendices C-I) 3 6/11/2001 86-001 231 12/9/1974 Archaeological Survey Report WIL-107 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-012 233 5/23/1995 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Realignment of County Road 312 and the Replacement of Existing Bridge Number 12 Across the Tiffin River in 1 9/13/2001 Springfield Township, William County, Ohio 86-013 230 12/15/1997 WIL-20A-/15/107-10.802/12.956/17.511 PID 16277, Highway Improvements Project, Jefferson Township, Williams County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-14 232 2/8/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed WIL-CR-27-4.827 Improvement Project in Center and Superior Townships, Williams County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 87-003 72 2/19/1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way Acquisitions for the Bays Road Bridges over the South and East Branches of the Portage River. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 87-007 73 11/7/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Interchange Modification of Interstate 75 and Ohio State Route 18 in Henry and Bloom Townships, Wood County and 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Allen Township, Hancock County, Ohio. 87-012 74 7/28/1994 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Slippery Elm Trail Project Wood County Park District Wood County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 87-20 75 Sep-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed Improvements to the Intersection of Township Road 221 and State Route 68 in Washington Township, Wood County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Woo-65-5.90 (PID 19287) 88-001 32 Apr-84 Ohio Department of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Services Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project No. W Y A- 30-9.06 (P.F. 658) (1 book) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 88-006 3/25/1994 An Evaluation of a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Wyandot/Crawford Route 30 Study Area 3 6/11/2001 88-008 16 1/9/1996 A Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 30 Relocation in Crane, Eden, Pitt and Antrim Townships, Wyandot County, and Tod, Holmes, Dallas and Bucyrus Townships, Crawford 1 6/11/2001 5/7/2002 County, Ohio (WAY/CRA-030-14.86/0.00, P.I.D. No. 10289) 88-008.1 1/9/1996 A Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 30 Relocation in Crane, Eden, Pitt and Antrim Townships, Wyandot County, and Tod, Holmes, Dallas and Bucyrus Townships, Crawford 3 6/11/2001 12/20/2001 County, Ohio (WAY/CRA-030-14.86/0.00, P.I.D. No. 10289) APPENDIX B.(map figures 1-5) 88-009 11/27/1995 Research Proposal for Data Recovery at Sites 33 Wy 674 and 783 for the Proposed Limited Access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Counties, Ohio (1 book) 88-014 Dec. 1995 W Y A/ CRA - 30-14.86/0.00 (PID 10289) CRA-577-7 Discussion of Effect 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Fay-010 Oct-93 An Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources impacted by the Proposed Relocation of U.S. 35 in Wayne Township, Fayette County and Concord Township, Ross County 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 1 5/26/1995 Revised Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Route 30 STA/COL - 30 - 18.35 /0.00 Alternatives Eastern Segment, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, Ohio 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Vol. 1:text 156 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 6 1/6/2000 A Phase I Archaeological Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Wilmington Bypass (CLI-US68/SR72-8.507/8.046; PID 16621) in Union, Chester, and 1,2 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Adams Townships, Clinton County, Ohio 11 8/10/1999 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Wilmington Bypass (CLI-068/073-18.507/8.046: PID 16621) in Union, Chester, and Adams Townships, 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Clinton County, Ohio 15 1998 Phase I Literature Review, Predictive Model, and Archaeological Cultural Resource Survey for the AUG/LOG-33-26.875/0.00;(PID 16385) Project in Clay, Duchouquet, Goshen, 1,2 6/11/2001 Pusheta, and Union Township in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Logan County, Ohio and Dinsmore and Jackson Townships in Shelby County, Ohio (Volumes 2-8 [8 books]) 17 Mar-93 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed WAY-23/53/67-13.33/14.92/16.98 Ramp Construction and Intersection Improvement in Crane Township, Wyandot County, Ohio. (PID 1,2 6/11/2001 10290) 41 7/12/1999 A Phase I Archaeological and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of Additional Areas in the Feasible Alternative for ROS-35-26.22 (PID 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Ross County, Ohio 47 Dec-82 Phase I and II Archaeological and historic/Architecture Survey for the proposed U.S. Route 35 Bypass Around Jackson, Jackson County, Ohio (JAC-35-09.55) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 49 Apr-79 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 35 through Fayette and Ross Counties, Ohio (FAY/ Ros 35-17.54/0.00 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 55 7/1/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for VIN-US 50-13.41, PID 105060 Culvert Replacement and Road Realignment in Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 76 Jun-00 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the KNO-62-10.65 Intersection Improvement Project Located in Harrison Township, Knox County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 171 5/22/1998 Phase I Archaeological Field Survey of the Colerain Corridor (Ham-127-5.47), Within the City of Cincinnati, in Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 318 4/20/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Two Curve Improvements on State Route 668, Bowling Green Township, Licking County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/26/1997 Additional Archaeological and Architectural Information for the evaluation of Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, U.S. 30 Relocation Project Reconnaissance Survey (2 3 4/19/2001 copies) 11/26/1997 STA/COL-30-18.35/0.00 Gray and Pape, Inc., Response to OHPO comments (3copies) 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 2/24/1999 Addendum to Phase I Literature Review, Predictive Model, and Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey of the AUG/LOG-33-26.875/0.00 (PID 16385) in Clay, 3 5/1/2001 Duchouqet, Goshen, Pusheta, and Union Townships in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Logan County, Ohio and Dinsmore and Jackson Townships in Shelby County, Ohio 8/5/1997 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, Athens 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) (2 copies) A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) (P.I.D. No. 14040) (Figure 2, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 sheets1-3) 6/3/1997 Addendum to Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Athens County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) 6/21/1999 Second Addendum to Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Township, Athens County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) (two copies) Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (Figures 5-6, 2 copies) 12/20/1999 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies for the FAI-U.S. 22/U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) Lancaster Bypass Preferred Alignment in Greenfield, Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 12/20/1999 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies for the FAI-U.S. 22/U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) Lancaster Bypass Preferred Alignment in Greenfield, Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio APPENDIX: E 3/28/1997 Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 7/18/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (two drafts). Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D) Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D, Table D-4) Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Figures 2,3,4, 6, 17) 9/13/1996 Updated Literature Review and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 11/24/1998 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) DRAFT 8/7/2001 An Assessment of the Historic Architectural Resources Potentially Affected by the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (two copies) 3 6/11/2001 6/10/1999 Additional Phase II Testing at 33 We 360 within the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 (PID 6497) Feasible Alternative in East Union Township, Wayne County, Ohio 3 6/11/2001 1/22/1999 Research Proposal for Phase III Data Recovery for Project WAY-30-11.86 (PID 6497) in East Union Township, Wayne County, Ohio, for Archaeological Site 33 We 342 3 6/11/2001 157 APPENDIX A: List of Reports by Consecutive Ohio Department of Transportation Catalog Number (ODOT Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 2/4/1999 Property Boundary Examinations of WAY-297-8, WAY-295-8, WAY-279-14, WAY-277-14, WAY-269-14, WAY-64-14, WAY-237-14, and WAY-238-14 for the WAY-30-11.86 3 6/11/2001 (PID 6497) U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wooster and East Union Townships, Wayne County, Ohio Nov-95 Phase II Site Evaluati9on Studies of Nine Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Five Historic Archaeological Sites, and One Architectural Location to be Impacted by the Proposed Limited 3 6/11/2001 Access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford Counties Ohio (WYA/CRA-030-14.86/0.00; P.I.D. No. 10289) Nov-00 CRA/RIC 30-9.91/0.00 PID No. 10762 U.S. Route 30 Relocation Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 3/2/1999 Final Report, phase II Cultural Resources investigations of Site 33Fe20 Fay-35-7.51, PID No. 6912 Union Township, Fayette County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 STATUS KEY: 1= report included in Project database, 2= report included in in the Sample database, 3= report excluded from Project and Sample databases 158 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 1 5/26/1995 Revised Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Route 30 STA/COL - 30 - 18.35 /0.00 Alternatives Eastern Segment, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, Ohio 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Vol. 1:text 76-036 2 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 1 4/19/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. 76-035 3 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-023 4 2/7/1995 Literature Review and Reconnaissance of a 1.35 Mi (2.16 Km) Section of U.S. Route 30 between Belden Ave. and Trump Rd. in Canton Township, Stark County, Ohio (2 BOOKS) 1 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 76-037 5 12/13/1995 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of Proposed Support Areas for the Route 30 STA/COL - 30 - 18.35/0.00 Alternatives Eastern Segment, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, 1 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Ohio Vol. 1 6 1/6/2000 A Phase I Archaeological Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Wilmington Bypass (CLI-US68/SR72-8.507/8.046; PID 16621) in Union, Chester, and 1,2 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Adams Townships, Clinton County, Ohio 23-035a 7 7/28/1998 Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 1 5/1/2001 12/20/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 37-020 9 12/10/1996 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, Athens 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) 80-003 10 Apr-84 Archaeological Survey Report for Transportation Project No, UNI/LOG 33-22.54/0.00 in Union and Logan Counties, Ohio Vols. 1 and 2. 1,2 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 11 8/10/1999 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Wilmington Bypass (CLI-068/073-18.507/8.046: PID 16621) in Union, Chester, and Adams Townships, 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Clinton County, Ohio 05-14-010-A 12 Jan-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Relocation of Route 33 Through Athens and Hocking Counties, Ohio 1,2 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 53-026 13 12/18/1997 Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 1 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (1 + MAPS) 23-001 14 Sep-82 The Phase I and II Archaeological and Historic / Architectural Survey of the Preferred Alignment for the Lancaster Bypass (FAI-33-11.22 [P.F. 626]) Fairfield County, Ohio 1,2 6/11/2001 7/18/2001 15 1998 Phase I Literature Review, Predictive Model, and Archaeological Cultural Resource Survey for the AUG/LOG-33-26.875/0.00;(PID 16385) Project in Clay, Duchouquet, Goshen, 1,2 6/11/2001 Pusheta, and Union Township in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Logan County, Ohio and Dinsmore and Jackson Townships in Shelby County, Ohio (Volumes 2-8 [8 books]) 88-008 16 1/9/1996 A Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 30 Relocation in Crane, Eden, Pitt and Antrim Townships, Wyandot County, and Tod, Holmes, Dallas and Bucyrus Townships, Crawford 1 6/11/2001 5/7/2002 County, Ohio (WAY/CRA-030-14.86/0.00, P.I.D. No. 10289) 17 Mar-93 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed WAY-23/53/67-13.33/14.92/16.98 Ramp Construction and Intersection Improvement in Crane Township, Wyandot County, Ohio. (PID 1,2 6/11/2001 10290) 85-001 18 Feb-82 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Alternate Alignments A and B Associated with the Proposed Construction of U.S. Route 30, East of Wooster, Ohio (WAY-30-11.88) 1,2 6/11/2001 23-024 19 Dec-94 Archaeological Investigation of the FAI-33-1.20/Diley Road Interchange in Violet Township, Fairfield County, Ohio (PID 13281) 1,2 6/11/2001 23-046 20 Dec-00 Addendum Archaeological Investigation of the FAI-33-1.20/Diley Road Interchange in Violet Township, Fairfield County, Ohio (PID 13281) 1 6/11/2001 11-11-014-A 21 Dec-96 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the CLA/CHP-68-15.19/0.00 Corridor Study Located in Urbana Township, Champaign County, Ohio (PID 8410) 1,2 7/18/2001 11-02-010-(C-L) 22 12/5/1996 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 1 6/11/2001 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) with Appendix F (two copies) and Figures 2 and 3. 17-016 23 11/7/1996 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 30 through Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (10 items) 1 6/22/2001 8/14/2001 17-012 24 Jul-78 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 30 in Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (CRA/RIC-30-9,83/0.00) (2 books) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-004 25 Dec. 1982 Phase I and II archaeological And History / Architecture Survey for the Proposed U.S. Route 35 Bypass around Jackson, Jackson County, Ohio (JAC-35-09.55) (1 Book) 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 02-10-031-2 26 Second Addendum To: A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eastern Portion (C.R. 12, Orange Township, Hancock County, to 1,2 T.R. 108, Salem Township, Wyandot County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Al 32-007 28 2/15/1996 Phase I Deep Testing on the Floodplain of the Blachard River and Tymochtee Creek for Project II of Segment II of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project (ALL/HAN/WAY 30- 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Delaware Township, Hancock County, and Salem Township, Wyandot County, Ohio (1 book) 60-030 29 Feb. 1998 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the MUS-60-21.47 Project Located in Falls and Muskingum Townships, Muskingum County, Ohio (PID 12137) (1 book) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-008 30 Apr-94 Summary of Archaeological Investigations Along The Proposed Improvement of U.S. 35 In Liberty and Jackson Township. Jackson County, Ohio. (JAC-35-1.68 -- PID. 7890) (1 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 book) 60-014 31 4/30/1993 Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Relocation of a Section of State Route 60 in Falls and Muskingum Townships, Muskingum County, 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Ohio (1 book) 88-001 32 Apr-84 Ohio Department of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Services Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project No. W Y A- 30-9.06 (P.F. 658) (1 book) 1,2 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 159 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 02-10-013 34 10/28/1992 A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eastern Portion (C.R. 12. Orange Township., Hancock County to T.R. 108, Salem Township, Wyandot 1 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Allen, Hancock, and Wyandot Counties, Ohio (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360) (5 Folders) 02-007 35 4/22/1991 A cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Western Portion (Beaverdam, Richland Township, Allen County to C.R. 12, Orange Township, Hancock 1 6/22/2001 12/20/2001 County) of Segment II of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Allen, Hancock, and Wyandot Counties (ALL/HAN/WYA/-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. 8360). (1 book) 05-03-026 36 6/30/1994 Predictive Model and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed U.S. Route 33 Relocation in Athens, Alexander, and Lodi Townships, Athens County, and Bedford Township, Meigs 1 6/22/2001 County, Ohio(3 Folders) 41 7/12/1999 A Phase I Archaeological and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of Additional Areas in the Feasible Alternative for ROS-35-26.22 (PID 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Ross County, Ohio 24-001 43 4/25/1979 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.s. Route 35 By-pass through Fayette and Ross Counties, Ohio (FAY/Ross 35-17.54/0.00) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-015 44 12/7/1988 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the ROS-35-33.14 Realignment Project, Ross County, Ohio (PF 1295) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-026 45 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 47 Dec-82 Phase I and II Archaeological and historic/Architecture Survey for the proposed U.S. Route 35 Bypass Around Jackson, Jackson County, Ohio (JAC-35-09.55) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-001 48 Dec-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 35 between Ballipolis and Thurman (Centerville) in Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-1.03/3.79/8.33) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 49 Apr-79 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 35 through Fayette and Ross Counties, Ohio (FAY/ Ros 35-17.54/0.00 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-002 51 Additional Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen in Springfield Township, Gallia County, Ohio (PID 1,2 11533). 27-008 52 Oct-88 An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed GAL-7-26.47 Strom Sewer Alignment in Addison Township, Gallia County, Ohio (P.F. 1207) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 70-015 53 Jun-89 An Archaeological Survey of the Design Alternatives for the Proposed I-71/S.R. 39 Interchange in Madison Township, Richland County, Ohio. (P.F. 1681) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 55 7/1/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for VIN-US 50-13.41, PID 105060 Culvert Replacement and Road Realignment in Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-009 56 Sep-92 A Cultural Resources Survey of the VIN-50-8.07 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment Project, Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio (PID 5213) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-001 58 11/10/1987 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed VIN-50-04.71 Realignment in Harrison Township, Vinton county, Ohio. (P.F. 922) 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 29-010 60 11/16/1976 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.S. 35 By-Pass in Greene and Fayette Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 24-008 61 Jul-98 An Archaeological Survey of a Design Area for the Proposed Modification of the I-71 Rest Areas (FAY-71-5.75) in Jefferson Township, Fayette County, Ohio. (P.F. 1681) 1 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-019 62 Jan-94 Archaeological Investigation of the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen, in Springfield township, Gallia County, Ohio P.I.D. 11533 1,2 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 01-004 64 9/17/1976 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "D" Through Clermont, Brown, Highland and Adams Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 01-01-002 66 4/8/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "B" Through Adams and Scioto Counties, Ohio 1 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 25-019 69 9/10/1981 Sawmill Road Archaeological Survey From Henderson Road to Billingsley Road City of Columbus. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-027 70 Apr-86 Preliminary Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Norton Road Expansion Corridor in Darbydale, Franklin County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-028 71 3/6/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Interstate 270 Interchanges at Tuttle and Hayden Run Roads In Western Franklin County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 87-003 72 2/19/1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way Acquisitions for the Bays Road Bridges over the South and East Branches of the Portage River. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 87-007 73 11/7/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Interchange Modification of Interstate 75 and Ohio State Route 18 in Henry and Bloom Townships, Wood County and 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Allen Township, Hancock County, Ohio. 87-012 74 7/28/1994 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Slippery Elm Trail Project Wood County Park District Wood County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 87-20 75 Sep-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed Improvements to the Intersection of Township Road 221 and State Route 68 in Washington Township, Wood County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Woo-65-5.90 (PID 19287) 76 Jun-00 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the KNO-62-10.65 Intersection Improvement Project Located in Harrison Township, Knox County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 25-003 77 6/12/1979 Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project FRA CR 52, Fishinger Road Sec. .00-.59 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 83-024 78 2/28/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of a Proposed Ohio Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement and Roadway Improvement Project (WAR-132-16.033; PID 11258) 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 Along State Road 132, Warren County, Ohio. 42-012 79 9/9/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Knox County Road 9 Bridge Replacement, Howard-Danville Road, Howard Township, Knox County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-011 80 1/3/1992 A Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Knox County Road 54 (Big Run Road) Realignment and Bridge Replacement in College Township, Knox County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio 42-013 81 1/14/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Knox County Road 33 Bridge Replacement over the Kokosing River, College and Harrison Townships, Knox County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio. 42-019 82 3/29/1995 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the County Road 77 Bridge Over Mohican River (PID# 9845) in Jefferson Township, Knox 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 42-018 83 6/7/1996 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of County Road 6 Located near Fredericktown, in Morris Township, Knox County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-020 84 7/17/1996 Phase I Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Road Alignment and Bridge Replacement (KNO-TR401-2.78; P.I.D. No. 14351) on Beckley 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Road in Morris Township, Knox County, Ohio 160 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 25-038 85 11/16/1990 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed State Route 161 Realignment Through Blendon and Plain Townships, Franklin County, Ohio (FRA- 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 161-16.75) 25-042 86 11/14/1990 An Archaeological Literature Review and Survey: Proposed Olentangy River Bicycle Path in the City of Columbus, Clinton Township, Franklin County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-046 87 7/30/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Improvements along Stelzer Road from Morse Road to Interstate 670 in Blendon and Mifflin Townships, Franklin 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 47-23 88 May-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements Along State Route 58 (LOR-58-26.570) and State Route 511 (LOR-511-21.581/34.021 and LOR-511A-0.000) in 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Amhurst, Camden, Henrietta, and Russia Townships, Lorain County, Ohio (PID 21439). 47-005 91 1/31/1979 The Archaeological Resources Within The Proposed Industrial Parkway West Project, City of Elyria, Lorain County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 47-015 92 11/11/1993 A Phase I and II Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed LOR-254-0.89 Bridge Replacement Project Sheffield Township, Lorain County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 47-004 93 2/7/1980 A Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Improvement of Colorado Avenue in the City of Lorain, Lorain Co. Ohio (LOR-611-4.38) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 47-001 94 Feb-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed State Route 20 By-Pass Near Elria, Lorain County, Ohio (LOR-20-15.99) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-004 95 5/30/1986 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of a 345 KV Ohio Edison Double Circuit Transmission Line (Hyatt-Tangy/Marysville-Tangy_ in Delaware and Liberty Townships, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Delaware County, Ohio. 19-001 96 Sep-77 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Right of Way For the Extension of U.S. Route 36, Darke County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-016 97 1/8/1981 Franklin and Madison Counties, Ohio Archaeological Survey Scioto Darby Creek Road Price- Hilliards Road over Big Darby Creek. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-012 98 5/8/1978 Preliminary Archaeological Survey for the I-670 Freeway and Airport Connector 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-005 99 1/30/1972 Archaeological Survey Report FRA CR 140 Kropp Road 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-023 100 2/1/1988 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations of the Hamilton Connector Upgrade Alternative, Butler and Warren Counties. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-002 103 7/27/1979 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of Two Bridge Replacement Sites in Knox County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 42-005 104 Jul-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Improvement of Knox County Road 31 (PF-KNO-015) 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-022 105 9/10/1999 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of Improvements to DEL-745-1.078 (PID#16465) State Route 745 and Glick Road Intersection, Concord Township, Delaware County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 25-002 106 Jul-78 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Relocation of Hayden Run Road Franklin County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-014 107 11/27/1985 A Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Strip Mine Site in Goshen Township, Belmont County. Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-013 108 Feb-85 A Phase I-III Archaeological Survey of the BEL-148-7.02 Locale (P.F. 1207), Belmont County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-008 109 12/16/1975 Archaeological Survey of Proposed Interstate 470- Belmont County. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-043 110 11/5/1993 A Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of Cultural Resources for the Proposed Harrison- Belmont 250 Corridor Study. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 78-027 111 Feb-99 Phase I Field Review and Archaeological Resources Survey for the TRU-46-20.599 Intersection Widening in Bazetta Township, Trumbull County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 78-022 112 7/7/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Area to be Impacted by the Replacement of the Belmont Avenue Bridge in the City of Niles, Weathersfield Township, Trumbull 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio. 78-010 113 Jan-84 Results of a Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Shortfield Takeoff and Landing Zone, and Proposed Relocation of Ridge Road at the Youngstown Municipal Airport, Vienna 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Township, Trumbull County, Ohio. 78-003 114 6/9/1981 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Custer Orangeville Road Bridge Replacement Project. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 72-011 115 7/19/1993 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed SAN-53-10.15 Highway Improvement Project in Sandusky Township, Sandusky County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-005 117 12/7/1989 A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Bridge Replacement over White Oak Creek Near Mt. Orab in Brown County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-004 118 May-89 An Archaeological Assessment of BRO-353-2.99, Bridge Replacement and Realignment, in Byrd Township, Brown County, Ohio. (P.F. 1278). 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 08-002 119 Aug-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed State Route 125 Realignments in Brown County, Ohio (BRO 125-12.37/17.78). 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 16-010 120 1/25/1995 Phase I Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Township Roads 364 Bridge Replacement Across the Mohican River in Tiverton Township, Coshocton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 16-015 121 Aug-95 Cultural Resources Investigations for the COS-751-4.70 Bridge Replacement Project in Oxford Township, Coshocton County, Ohio (PID 11485). 1,2 8/14/2001 16-008 122 Jul-94 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations For the COS-US36-20.48 Highway Redevelopment Project Through Keene, Lafayette, Oxford and Tuscarawas Townships, Coshocton 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio. 16-004 123 1/6/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Coshocton County Road 271 Bridge Replacement in Franklin Township, Coshocton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-003 124 May-77 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BEL 7-11.89 Project Belmont County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 07-001 125 May-77 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BEL 7-0.00 Project Belmont County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 08-013 126 2000 Phase I History/Architecture Survey and Summary of Archaeological Field Review for the BRO-SR774-6.43 (PID 17905) Bridge Replacement Project in the Clark Township, Brown 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 County, Ohio 08-009 127 1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance Maysville-AA Bridge. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 08-008 128 Mar-94 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed BRO-763-8.31 (PID 4931) Bridge Replacement and Realignment in Byrd and Huntington Townships, Brown County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 72-002 129 11/13/1980 Archaeological Survey Report Transportation Project No. SAN-412/1.10 P.F. 673 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 72-001 130 Jul-80 Dobe Bridge, Country Road 35 - Township Road 201 Archaeological Survey Fremont (Sandusky County), Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 72-004 131 Jul-83 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Gibsonburg, Ohio Sewer, Sandusky County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 83-016 132 Oct-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the WAR SR48-21.17 Bridge Replacement Project Located in Clear Creek Township, Warren County, Ohio (PID 5889). 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 81-003 133 1/20/1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Little Auglaize River Watershed, Van Wert, Paulding, and Putnum Counties. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 161 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 09-004 134 2/25/1982 Archaeological Survey Report; Transportation Project No. BUT-747/13.78 (P.F. 1408) 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-019 135 Mar-90 An Archaeological Assessment of Two Bridge Replacement Sites (BUT-CR233-5.34 and BUT-CR25-6.80) in St. Clair and Wayne Townships, Butler County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 09-001 136 3/21/1979 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey For the Proposed Relocation of State Route 122 in Butler County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 09-031 137 Jan-96 A Phase I Archaeological Survey and History/Architecture Survey of the Proposed State Route 747 Improvement Corridor (BUT-SR747-2.15) in Liberty and Union Townships Butler 1 8/14/2001 County, Ohio 09-034 138 3/21/1996 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Allen Road and Interstate 75 Interchange in Union Township, Butler County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 09-032 139 Feb-95 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed BUT-CR18-1.23 Intersection Improvement at Princeton and Lesourdsville-West Chester Roads, In Liberty Township, Butler County, 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Ohio 09-015 09- 140 Jul-97 A Phase I Cultural Resource Management Survey for the Proposed 2.57 km (1.6 mi.) Segment of the Cincinnati- Dayton Road Widening in Lemon Township, Butler County, and 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 016 Franklin Township, Warren County, Ohio. And Addendum Report 2 items 09-012 141 Feb-91 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Intersection Improvements in Fairfield, Union, and Liberty Townships, Butler County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 01-018 142 May-98 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for the ADA-SR136-34.605 (21.51 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Located in Winchester Township, Adams County, Ohio (PID 12905) 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 04-002 143 1975 Archaeological Survey of ATB/LAKE S.R. 2; Locational Analysis in the Prehistory of Northeast Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 04-010 144 9/2/1941 An Archaeological Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 18-60 145 10/23/1997 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed CUY-Aerospace Parkway Project City of Brook Park, Olmsted and Middleburg Townships, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 18-045 146 Jul-95 Phase I -Cultural Resources Report; Literature Search and Field Survey 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 18-028 148 7/16/1993 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed Widening of Royalton and Pearl Roads, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 16-002 150 Sep-88 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Proposed COS-751-3.72 Realignment in Oxford Township, Coshocton County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 21-014 151 8/27/1993 Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Cleveland Avenue and Maxtown Road Extension Alternates in Sharn and Blendon Townships, Franklin 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 County, and Orange and Genoa Townships, Delaware County, Ohio 16-001 152 7/15/1986 A Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Simco Mining Tract, Linton Township, Coshocton County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-009 153 6/2/1989 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed Connector Road For a Proposed I-71 Interchange in Orange Township, Delaware County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 20-009 155 Sep-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed DEF-CD140-13.196 Bridge Replace in Washington Township, Defiance County, Ohio 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 20-006 156 1/12/1993 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the County Road 42 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Noble Townships, Defiance County, Ohio 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 20-002 157 1/5/1979 Archaeological Survey Report For the Proposed DEF 18-13.07/15.55 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 57-016 159 Dec-84 An Archaeological Survey of the Dog Leg Road Realignment, Montgomery County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-012 160 6/25/1984 Archaeological Investigations of the Proposed U.S. Route 35 Parkway Alignment (MOT-35-9.21) Project Montgomery County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 57-003 161 8/12/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-675 By-Pass Near Dayton, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-002 162 Aug-80 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Chautauqua Road Bridge Replacement. 1,2 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 56-002 163 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Hune Bridge and Ring Mill Canoe Access Road Areas on the Little Muskingum River in the Wayne National Forest. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-007 164 6/20/1986 A Phase I and II Archaeological Resources Survey for the Proposed MUS C.R. 719 Extension in Zanesville, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-003 165 4/8/1982 MUS-208-0.47 Village of Dresden Muskingum County, Ohio Environmental Assessment. 1,2 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 57-047 166 6/14/1995 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Alexandersville-Bellbrook Road (State Route 725) Reconstruction and Widening Project in the City of Centerville, Washington 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Township, Montgomery County, and Sugar Creek Township, Greene County, Ohio. 31-022 167 Jul-96 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey of a Bridge Construction Project in new Baltimore. Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 31-004 169 9/2/1987 Cultural Resources Survey of: Vine Street Bridge Over the Mill Creek S.F.N. 3100510 Northbend Bridge over the Mill Creek S.F.N. 3137120 Seymour Avenue Bridge over the Mill 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Creek S.F.N. 3136914 Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. 31-014 170 Jun-78 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Queen City Avenue Improvement Project. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 171 5/22/1998 Phase I Archaeological Field Survey of the Colerain Corridor (Ham-127-5.47), Within the City of Cincinnati, in Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 56-001 172 Jan-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Monroe County Road 81. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-018 173 Nov-94 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed MUS-93-28.24 (PID 12946) Bridge Replacement in Monroe Township, Muskingum County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-015 174 7/2/1993 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey: Proposed Symmes Creek Bridge Replacement in Madison Township, Muskingum County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 31-006 175 5/27/1989 An Assessment of the Cultural Resources Impact of the Proposed Lawrenceburg Road Improvement Hamilton County, Ohio. 1,2 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 31-002 176 Sep-85 An Archaeological Assessment (Phase I and II) of Proposed Improvements to the Gilmore Road/I-275 Interchange in Hamilton County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 30-030 177 Sep-95 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed GUE-146-3.66 (PID 8843) Bridge Replacement in Spencer Township, Guernsey County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 57-046 178 1/19/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Improvement of Linden Avenue (Xenia Pike) in Montgomery County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 65-010 179 4/5/1995 Slate Run Metro Park Farm Connector Road, Madison Township, Pickaway County, Ohio: Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-15 180 12/3/1999 Cultural Resources Literature Review, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Ecological Assessment of a Proposed Project Area in South Bloomfield, Pickaway County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-019 181 Mar-94 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for County Bridge PIK T.R. 240-0010 in Benton Township, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-020 182 Mar-95 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey for County Bridge PIK C.R. 27-0667 in Sunfish Township Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 162 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 66-024 183 Dec-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Report of PIK-CR3-0.00 (PID 17178) Morgans Fork Road Improvement and PIK-CR3-s.os (PID 20388) Bridge Replacement Project, Benton Township, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Pike County, Ohio 64-007 184 Feb-95 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed PER-555-2.65 & 2.73 (PID 13510&13511) Bridge Replacements and Road Realignment in Bearfield Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-002 185 Aug-79 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed State Route 762 Relocation Corridor near Harrisburg in Pickaway County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-001 186 7/26/1977 Archaeological Survey Report PIC-104-3.34/3.82 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 65-004 187 8/6/1979 PIC 104-3.38/3.82 Cultural Resource Survey Report: A-Reevaluation 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 65-011 188 Jan-97 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed PIC-CR7-9.815 (PID 15590) Road Widening in Madison and Walnut Townships, Pickaway County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 61-002 189 Jun-95 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Improvement of NOB-78-8.90 Across Sharon and Olive Township, Noble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 64-003 191 7/13/1989 Phase I and II Cultural Resources Survey: Proposed County Road #34 Bridge Replacement, Madison Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-009 192 5/27/1994 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-010 193 Nov-94 Results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Gravel Roadway, Parking Lot, and Pedestrian Link at Mohican State Park, Ashland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-013 194 May-00 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements to the US Route 224 and US Route 250 Intersection (ASD-224-1.445) in Riggles Township, Ashland County, Ohio. 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-026 195 Mar-98 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Bridge Replacement, Stonelick-Williams Corner Road, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-023 196 2/16/1995 Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations For the Proposed Blue Sky Park Road Bridge Replacement Project, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-002 197 Jul-85 Preliminary Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed MRG-266-4.21 Bridge Replacement Project Over the Muskingum River at the Village of Stockport, Morgan County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-005 198 Jun-95 Cultural Resources Investigation of the MRG-376-0.00 Slip Repair project along the Muskingum River in Windsor Township, Morgan County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-008 200 May-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Morgan County Garage Tract Located in Morgan Township, Morgan County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 58-006 201 3/1/1996 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey for the Proposed State Route 669 Bridge Realignment in York Township, Morgan County, and Harrison Township, Perry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 59-004 202 12/1/1998 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed MRW-42-14.835 (9.22 SLM), PID 16698, Bridge Replacement Over Whetstone Creek in Cardington Township, Morrow County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio. 59-001 203 11/25/1979 Archaeological Survey Report State and Douglas Connector Mt. Gilead, Morrow County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 59-003 204 9/16/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Morrow County Road 9 Improvement in Cardington and Gilead Townships, Morrow County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-011 205 8/24/1990 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the CLE-132-4.63 (PF 2044) Realignment Project, Ohio Township, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-010 206 12/20/1988 Phase I and II Archaeological & Historic Investigation of the Proposed Interchange With Future U.S. 50 and I-275 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-015 207 Mar-91 An Archaeological Assessment of the State Route 28 Improvement Project Area (CLE-28-3.81) Near the Community of Mt. Repose in Miami Township, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-003 208 Jun-78 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Improvement of State Route 32 (CLE-32-10.50/10.52/12.16) Near Williamsburg, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 67-002 209 Oct-79 Archaeological Survey Report POR-Summit St. P.F. POR-022 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-014 212 2/16/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the POR-43-12.72/18.44 Road Widening Project in the City of Streetboro, Portage County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-17(012) 213 1/9/2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Improvement to the Intersection of S.R. 306 and Treat Road (PID 22961) in the Sity of Aurora, Portage County, Ohio (II Copies) 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-16 214 6/12/2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the West Branch State Park Campground Improvement Project in Charleston Township, Portage County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 66-008 216 Sep-92 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations Along the Proposed Widening of Pike U.S. 23-5.23 in Pee Pee and Seal Townships, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 66-012 217 Sep-93 Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Survey for Pike County Bridge PIK-65-3.27 Union Township, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 66-04(I &II) 218 Jul-88 A Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Power Plant Site Near Omega, Pike County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 13-013 219 Jun-93 An Archaeological Survey of the Revised South Milford Road Bridge Replacement Site in Miami and Union Townships, Clermont County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-004 220 Apr-88 An Archaeological Survey of the Eagle Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-005 221 May-89 An archaeological Survey of the Snider Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-006 222 Aug-90 An Archaeological Survey of the Old Mill Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 12-009 223 3/16/1992 Literature Review and Archaeological Survey: Proposed Buck Creek Bikeway in the city of Springfield, Springfield Township, Clark County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 12-015 225 Mar-96 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the CLA-54-2.48 (1.54 SLM) Relocation Study Located in Harmony Township, Clark County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-013 227 11/22/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Seneca County Road 19 Bridge Replacement in Clinton and Hopewell Townships, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-069 228 10/31/1996 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed Ohio Turnpike (I-80)/ Interstate 77 Interchange Project Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio 1,2 3/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-013 230 12/15/1997 WIL-20A-/15/107-10.802/12.956/17.511 PID 16277, Highway Improvements Project, Jefferson Township, Williams County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-001 231 12/9/1974 Archaeological Survey Report WIL-107 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-14 232 2/8/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed WIL-CR-27-4.827 Improvement Project in Center and Superior Townships, Williams County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 86-012 233 5/23/1995 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Realignment of County Road 312 and the Replacement of Existing Bridge Number 12 Across the Tiffin River in 1 9/13/2001 Springfield Township, William County, Ohio 73-002 234 Jan-80 Preliminary Archaeological Investigation Along the Alternate 7 Access for the Proposed Portsmouth Bridge in Scioto County, Ohio SCI 23-00.00 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 163 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 73-39 235 Jul-01 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the proposed SCI-52-1.28 Bridge Replacement Project Located in Nile Township, Scioto County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 74-001 236 Jan-80 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Relocation of U.S. Route 23 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-20 237 Jul-01 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed Grade Separation on SEN-TR43-0.00 in Loudon Township, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 73-010 238 12/15/1978 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Portsmouth Bridge, Scioto County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 73-007 239 4/8/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Appalachian Corridor "B" 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-002 240 5/26/1977 Archaeological Survey SEN-Jones Road 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-003 241 Dec-97 A Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation of the PRE-SR-355-0.113 Fort St. Clair Bridge Replacement Project, Washington Township, Preble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-002 242 11/20/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed County Road 15 Realignment and Bridge Bypass near Lewisburg, Harrison Township Preble County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-007 243 Oct-85 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Road Development and Interchange Modifications, SUM 77/18-23.21/1.55, Copley Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 79-002 244 Feb-79 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Realignment of Route 250 and 800 near Dennison, Tuscarawas County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 79-001 245 Sep-79 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Improvement of S.R. 212 in Tuscarawas and Carroll Counties, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-014 250 11/20/1991 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Widening of Fishcreek Road in Stow Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-014 251 12/14/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Seneca County Road 36 Bridge Replacement in Clinton Township, Seneca County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 79-010 252 Jan-93 Archaeological Investigations and Interpretation Along the TUS-Reiser Avenue Extension Near New Philadelphia, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-026 253 2/12/1993 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Interchange at State Route 8 and Seqasons Road in Stow Township, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-003 254 7/14/1977 Archaeological Survey Report SUM- HOWE Road 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-011 255 10/2/1990 A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Portage Path Bridge Replacement Project and Pavement Widening in Northhampton and Portage Townships, Summit County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 55-026 258 Jun-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Improvements Along Route 36 in Spring Creek Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 54-006 259 Nov-98 A Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Coldwater Creek Road Bridge Replacement, Mercer County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-19 260 5/31/2001 Summery of Cultural Resources field review in Monroe Monroe Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-21 261 2/20/2001 Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the MIA-CR9-17.13 (PID22242) Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Newberry Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 54-005 262 12/15/1993 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for Six Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Washington and Recovery Townships, Mercer County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-003 264 11/15/1977 Archaeological Survey Report Bureau of Environmental Services MIA 571-6.43 1 9/13/2001 55-006 265 11/29/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Widening of Looney Road and County Road 25A Improvements in Piqua, Spring Creek Township, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 55-17 266 Apr-00 Literature Review and Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the MIA-41-6.26 Bridge Replacement in Staunton and Elizabeth Townships, Miami County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 50-017 267 Feb-95 Cultural Resources Survey MAH 80-3.81 (I-80/SR 46 Interchange) PID #9016 Austintown Township, Mahoning County 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 50-004 269 7/24/1986 Phase I and II Archaeological Surveys of Two Bridge Replacement Projects in Mahoning County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 45-026 270 Sep-93 A Cultural Resources Survey of the LIC-13-6.37 Intersection Improvement Project, Licking Township Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 51-002 271 Jul-84 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of Marion County Road 27 J. Bridge Replacement 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 51-001 272 9/12/1980 Cultural Resource Survey Report 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 51-005 273 3/6/1998 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Marion Dual Rail Industrial Park Access Road and Improvements to Marion-Williamsport Road, Marion 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Township, Marion County, Ohio 51-007 274 Mar-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey forr the Marion County Garage Tract ( Mar-County Garage) Located in Marion Township, Marion County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 52-007 275 Dec-89 A Cultural Resources survey and Evaluation of the MED-18-25.878 (SLK) / 16.08 (SLM) (PID 4082) Ridge Rd. Extension Project, Granger and Sharon Townships, Medina County, 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 52-004 276 3/20/1989 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the MED-94-12.66 Bridge Replacement Project, Granger Township, Medina County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 50-043 277 Sep-01 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations for the proposed Improvements to State Route 534 and County Road 20 in Goshen Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 48-018 278 5/27/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed LUC University/Parks Trail, Elks Realignment Bike Path in the City of Toledo, Sylvania Township, Lucas County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 48-020 279 9/12/1994 An Archaeological Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington Street Bridge Replacement in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 48-027 280 10/24/1996 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of the Seaman Street/ Norfolk Southern Grade Separation in Oregon Township, Lucas County, 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Ohio 48-029 281 1/27/1997 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of County Road 136 Bridge No. 790 in Waterville Township, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 48-031 282 Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvements to Airport Highway in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 48-47 283 4/1/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge Rehabilitation Project Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 45-004 285 6/16/1977 Archaeological Survey Report LIC-Jo Ann Road Newark, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-014 287 5/16/1990 A Cultural Resources Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Broad Street Widening from Blacklick Creek, Jefferson Township, Franklin County, to Taylor 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Road, Lima Township, Licking County, Ohio 45-024 288 Sep-93 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed LIC-IR 70-16.00 Interchange Improvements at SR 13 in Licking Township, Licking County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-018 289 Sep-91 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Resources Survey for Proposed Improvements to State Route 79 in Newark and Union Townships, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-51 290 1/22/2001 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the LIC-668-0.50 Proposed Road Widening Project, Bowling Green Township, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 164 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 51-004 291 6/16/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Crawford-Marion Line Road Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Grand Prairie Township, Marion County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 03-004 292 4/11/1985 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed STR 655-1565 and CR 775-2785 Bridge Replacement Projects Ashland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 03-003 293 Nov-99 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ASD-42-6.46 Bridge Replacement and Intersection Improvement in Montgomery Township, Ashland County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 03-015 294 6/26/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the Proposed ASD TR1006-11.20 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Clear Creek Township, Ashland County, 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Ohio 14-001 295 11/5/1976 An Archaeological Survey of the New Burlington Road Relocation Project Clinton County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 14-002 296 10/27/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey: County Road 29 Bridge Replacement, Clark Township, Clinton County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 14-003 297 11/11/1997 Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Right-of-Way for the Realignment of County Road 5 and the Replacement of the Existing Bridge Across Anderson Fork in Chester 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Clinton County, Ohio 22-009 298 Jan-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ERI-River Road Reconstruction Located in Huron Township, Erie County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 22-002 299 Jul-81 The Preliminary Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements to US Route 250 in Erie County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 28-001 301 Jul-79 Archaeological Survey Report GEA-322-0.59 GEA-306-11.89 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 35-002 304 12/23/1983 Phase I/II Archaeological Survey for Relocated SR 110, Damascus Township, Henry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 35-007 305 12/23/1992 A Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed US Route 6/24 and Industrial Drive Interchange Near Napoleon in Liberty and Napoleon Townships, Henry County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 35-012 306 3/7/1995 Literature Review, Reconnaissance Survey, and Architectural Documentation for the Napoleon Bridge Replacement Over the Maumee River on State Route 108 in Napoleon 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Henry County, Ohio 45-017 307 Sep-91 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Segment of State Route 157 in Union Township, Licking County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 36-007 308 May-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for County Br. HIG CR10-1.00 Liberty Township, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-006 309 May-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for County BR. HIG CR4-5.79 Brush CR. TWP., Hightland County Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-009 310 Apr-93 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the County Bridge HIG C.R. 13-1.40 in Clay Township, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 36-005 311 10/15/1990 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for Bridge Replacement HIG-C.R. 20-8.39 in Hamer and White Oak Townships, Highland County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 41-001 312 12/28/1976 Preliminary Archaeological and Architectural Survey of the Proposed US Route 22, Jefferston County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 41-008 313 3/26/1991 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Alignment of the Intersection of Wilson Avenue and Montgomery Lane in Mingo Junction, Jefferson County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 41-011 314 9/8/1997 Phase I Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Widening of a Portion of Sunset Boulevard, Within the City of Steubenville, Jefferson County, 1 9/13/2001 Ohio 44-003 315 10/22/1984 Phase I and II Literature Search and Location Survey of the Proposed Bridge Project Area, LAW CR104-0.00, P.F. LAW013 Lawrence County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 44-010 316 Jun-90 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Lawrence County Road 29 Improvement in Aid and Elizabeth Township, Lawrence County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 44-021 317 Dec-99 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Investigations for the LAW-7-9.929 Road Improvements in Union and Rome Townships, Lawrence County, Ohio 1,2 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 318 4/20/2000 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Two Curve Improvements on State Route 668, Bowling Green Township, Licking County, Ohio 1 9/13/2001 01-001 Aug-80 Detailed Testing at the Perry I Site (33-AD-40), Adams County, Ohio (ADA-32-0.00) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 01-003 4/15/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Route 41 Jacksonville By-pass in Adams County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 01-016 Sep-97 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the ADA-SR41-35.485(22.04 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Over Ohio Brush Creek in Meigs and Oliver Townships, Adams County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 (PID 12884) 01-07-01-017 Mar-98 The ADA-SR41-35,485(22.04 SLM) Bridge Replacement Project Over Ohio Brush Creek in Meigs and Oliver Townships, Adams County, Ohio, and Further Interpretation of 3 7/18/2001 33AD371: Addendum Report (PID 12884) 02-001 7/27/1978 Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey for Relocation of S.R. 30 in Allen, Hancock, Wyandot, and Crawford Counties, Ohio (4 Folders) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 02-10-015 A-1 6/21/1994 Assessment Survey of Eight Prehistoric Archaeological Site Clusters, Six Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Eight Historic Archaeological Sites, and Seven Architectural Locations to 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 be Impacted by the Eastern Portion of Segment II of the Proposed US Route Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/0.00; P.I.D.8360) Hancock and Wyandot Counties, Ohio (Vol I-III) 02-10-015-D 8/26/1992 National Register of Historic Place Eligibility Assessment of the Montgomery Cluster (33 Hk 193 and Hk 194), sites HAN-444-15 and HAN-451-15, and the Tile House Site (HAN- 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 442-15/33 Hk 489) to be Impacted by Section I of the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Orange Township, Hancock County, Ohio 04-001 9/29/1989 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the South Ridge Bridge Project 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 05-03-026-G 9/20/1995 National Register of Historic Eligibility Assessment Survey of Sites 33 At 714,33 At 723,33 At 724, 33 At 740, and 33 Ms 312 to be Impacted by the Proposed Relocation of US Route 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 33 (ATH/MEG-33-19.25/0.00/0.00; P.I.D. No. 10884) in Athens and Meigs Counties, Ohio 10-007 2/19/1994 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location of the East Half of the East Canton to East Liverpool Segment of the Route 30 Highway Improvement Project Carroll and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 Counties, Ohio 11-005 3/7/1996 Documentary Research for the Proposed Highway 68 Cedar Bog Project (CHP-68-2.446(1.52), P.I.D. No. 9927), in Harrison, Concord, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign 3 County, Ohio 11-01110-E 2/24/1997 An Addendum to the Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad 3 River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) 165 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 11-014 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 68 Preliminary Development Study Project (CHP-68-2.446 [1.52]) in Concord, 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio 11-014-H Phase I Literature Review and Predictive Model for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 3 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) Appendix E. 11-015 010-I 7/18/1997 Phase I Literature Review and Predictive Model for the Proposed U.S. 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and 3 Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927). 11-02-010-5 8/12/1997 Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 68 Preliminary Development Study Project (CHP-68-2.446 [1.52]) in 3 Concord, Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 9927) 11-02-010-F 5/23/1997 Phase I Cultural Resource Management Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the US Route 68 Preliminary Development Study (CHP-68-2.446[1.52]) Project in Concord, 3 7/18/2001 Harrison, Mad River, Salem, and Urbana Townships, Champaign County, Ohio (P.I.D No. 9927) 11-02-010-G 3/7/1996 Addendum to Phase I Research for the Proposed Highway 68 Cedar Bog Project (CHP-68-2.446(1.52), P.I.D. No. 9927), in Harrison, Concord, Salem, and Urbana Townships, 3 7/18/2001 Champaign County, Ohio (Maps) 12-013 May-94 Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Review for the Proposed Bechtle Avenue Extension in Springfield and Moorfield Townships, and the City of Springfield, Clark County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 13-001 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of East Fork Lake, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 13-006 8/16/1993 Phase I and II Archaeological Research for the Proposed I-275 Ramp and Related East Miami Business Center in South Milford, Clermont County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 13-020 12/15/1993 3 9/13/2001 14-008 10/29/1999 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of a Proposed Ohio Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement and Roadway Realignment Project Along State Route 28, Harlan 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 Township, Warren County, and Marion Township, Clinton County, Ohio 15-17-010-B 11/16/1998 A Phase II Architectural Assessment Survey of Eight Properties in Conjunction with the Proposed U.S. Route 30 Road Improvement Project in Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 Counties, Ohio (2 copies) 17-010 7/15/1977 Historic/Architectural Survey & Report for CRA/RIC-30-9.83/0.00 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 17-026 4/20/1998 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies of Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Two Historic Archaeological Sites to be Impacted by the Proposed limited Access Right-of Way of the 3 7/18/2001 U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio (CRA\RIC-30-9.91/9.00; P.I.D. No. 10762) 17-028 2/25/1999 Boundary Delineation and Application of the Criteria of Effect for CRA-10-13, CRA-633-14, CRA-643-14, and Addition Investigation for CRA-620-13, CRA-644-14, CRA-687-15, 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 CRA-689-15, RIC-676-9 17-07-012-A Dec. 1989 An Archaeological Assessment of CRA-30-13.53 Bridge Replacement in Whetstone Township and CRA-30-16.62 Bridge Replacement in Jefferson Township, In Crawford County, 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Ohio. (P.F. 1350) (1 book) 17-13-010-A 5/7/1993 A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Wyandot and Crawford Counties, Ohio 3 6/11/2001 5/7/2002 17-13-010-B 11/27/1995 Research Proposal for Data Recovery at Sites 33 Wy 674 and 783 for the proposed limited access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford 3 6/11/2001 7/18/2001 Counties, Ohio 18-012 7/23/1991 A Phase I Investigation for the Proposed I-271/480, Harvard Road and Richmond Widening in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 18-038 10/3/1995 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Widening of a 518 Meter Section of Cedar Road, Orange Township, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 21-008 7/29/1988 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Survey: Proposed I-71 Interchange in Orange Township, Delaware County, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 23-023 Nov-94 Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Search for the FAI-33-0.00/1.20 Corridor Study Located in Bloom, Greenfield, Hocking and Violet Townships, Fairfield County and Madison 3 6/11/2001 Township, Franklin County (PID 13281) 23-035b Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 12/20/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D, Tables D-1-D-3) 23-039 8/20/1998 Addendum to Phase I Resources Survey for FAI-U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 P.I.D. No. 12613 in Greenfield and Hocking Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (2 copies) 3 7/18/2001 25-085 7/28/1997 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Proposed FRA- Hard Road Improvement Widening and Grade Separation with the CSX Railroad Improvement project, Perry and 3 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 Sharon Townships, Franklin County, Ohio 27-003A Mar-80 Intensive Sampling of Selected Portions of the Proposed 4-Lane Development, U.S. Route 35, Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-01.03/03.79/08.33) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-003B Mar-80 Intensive Sampling of Selected Portions of the Proposed 4-Lane Development, U.S. Route 35, Gallia County, Ohio (Gal-35-01.03/03.79/08.33) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-012 7/26/1990 Management Summary: Fieldwork at the Stowers I and Stowers II Sites 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-012.1 Mar-90 Summary of Cultural Resource Management Investigations at Archaeological Sites 33GA48 (Stowers I) and 33GA49 (Stowers II), highway Corridor GAL-35-03.79 (PID 5301), 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Gallia County, Ohio 27-015 4/25/1991 The Stowers Sites: Two Early Archaic Camps Along Raccoon creek in Raccoon Township Gallia County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-021 Feb-96 Detailed Archaeological Examination of Three Prehistoric Sites (33GA254, 255 and 277) Impacted by the Proposed GAL-850-2.78 Project (PID 11533) in Springfield Township, 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Gallia County, Ohio 27-022 May-96 Additional Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Survey for the GAL-850-2.78 Bridge Replacement near Evergreen in Springfield Township, Gallia County, Ohio (PID 11533). 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 27-023 Mar-81 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of State Route 160Between Kemper Hillow Road and Bulaville Porter Road (GAL-US. 35.S.R. 160--08.22/02.81) Appendices G 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 28-002 Aug-80 Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of the Geauga County Service Garage Construction Area 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 166 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 29-003 May-80 Phase III Investigations of Archaeological Sited to be Affected by Proposed Route 35 through Green and Fayette Counties, Ohio Gre/Fay-35-14.89/00.00 (PF 398) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 29-006 8/12/1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Proposed I-675 By-Pass Near Dayton, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 31-020.B 6/24/1987 Hopple Street Project Meeker Street to I-75 Cincinnati, Ohio 3 8/14/2001 31-26 4/25/1997 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the Ohio Department of Transportation's HAM/WAR-US22/3-16.15/0.00 Project, Sycamore and Symmes Townships, Hamilton County, 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 and Deerfield Township, Warren County, Ohio. 32-004 8/26/1992 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment of the Montgomery Cluster (33 HK 193 nd 33 Hk 194), Sites HAN-444-15 and HAN-451-15, and the Tile House Site 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 (HAN-442-15/33 Hk 489) to be Impacted by Section I of the Proposed US 30 Relocation (ALL/HAN/WYA-30-20.31/0.00/.00; P.I.D. 8360) in Orange Township, Hancock County, Ohio 33-001 6/23/1988 A Report of Phase I Cultural Resource Investiongations of the Proposed Mt. Victory/East Liberty Pipeline Hardin and Logan Counties, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 37.005.1 Mar-81 Archaeological Assessment of Six Sites in the Central Hocking River valley for the Proposed Relocation of Route 33 through Athens and Hocking Counties, Ohio (HOC/ATH-33- 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 14.87/ 16.82/00.00/02.00/03.80) (volumes 1 and 2) 40-004.1 May-84 Addendum to JAC 35 Report Evaluation of the Mather Site 33 JA63 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 40-010 6/6/1994 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Roadway At the Sarah James Corporate Park Lick Township, Jackson County, Ohio (35-14.88) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-012 6/6/1994 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Access Roadway at the Sarah James Corporate Park, Lick Township Jackson county, Ohio (35-14.88) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 40-013 Mar-95 Cultural Resources literature Search for the Proposed JAC-CR9-0.00 (Extension)/Sarah James Corporate Park Access, In Lick Township, Jackson County, Ohio (PID 7569) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 40-015 Dec. 1998 Summary of Archaeological Investigations At the Proposed Route 32/327 Interchange and County Road 88 Relocation Project In Milton Township, Jackson County, Ohio. (Jac-32- 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 17.16 -- PID 13386) (JAC-CR 88-0.00 -- PID 18045) (1 Book) 44-22 4/1/2001 3 9/13/2001 45-005 A Historic/Prehistoric Survey for Jo Ann Road, City of Newark, Licking County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 45-008 Jan-79 An Archaeological Survey of the Licking County Park and Recreation Tract, Union Township, Licking County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 47-020 May-98 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Oak Point Road Improvement Project, Black River Township, Lorain County, Ohio. 3 8/14/2001 47-022 Jan-01 Phase I Resource Survey (Short Report Format) for the Proposed Intersection Improvement to State Route 113 and Oberlin Road LOR-113-8.21 (PID 18233) Amherst Township, 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 Lorain County, Ohio. 48-001 Oct-79 Ohio Department of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Services Cultural Resource Survey Report Project No.LUC 2-11.82/13.91 P.F. 537 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-015 Nov-92 Phase III Assessment of Selected Archaeological Resources Along the Preferred Alternate of S.R. 2 in Lucas, Ottawa, and Wood counties, Ohio (PID# 6515) Vol.I 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-015.1 Nov-92 Phase III Assessment of Selected Archaeological Resources Along the Preferred Alternate of S.R. 2 in Lucas, Ottawa, and Wood counties, Ohio (PID# 6515) Vol.II 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 48-035 Dec-87 State Route 2 Western Basin Cultural Resource Assessment Lucas-Wood-Ottawa Counties, Ohio (PF 1247) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 50-016 10/1/1993 Center Street Bridge Replacement Project Youngstown, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 53-028 11/7/1997 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (1 of 2) 55-001 Jul-78 Bridge Replacement SR 55 Miami County 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 57-019 2/5/1987 Archaeological Resource Report For the Proposed Trotwood Connector and Turner Road Extension in Montgomery County, Ohio. 1 8/14/2001 12/20/2001 60.03.1 Jan-80 Cultural Resource Survey Report MUS-208-0.47 (PF 722) 3 8/14/2001 9/13/2001 60-017 8/30/1994 Phase III Assessment of Sites 33 Mud 525 and 33 Mu 529 for the Proposed Route 60 Relocation in Muskingum County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 60-028 Nov-94 Cultural Resource Literature Search for the Proposed MUS-60-17.88 Corridor from Zanesville to Dresden, Ohio (PID 12141) 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 62-011 5/24/1995 Literature Review of the Proposed Road Improvement OTT-163-21.89 in Ottawa County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 64-004 12/21/1992 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Perry County Bikeway in Thorn, Hopewell, Reading, Jackson, Pike, and Salt Lick Townships, Perry County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-004 9/10/1982 Results of Preliminary Reconnaissance Archaeological Survey of the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 67-005 4/30/1987 Phase I Archaeological Investigations at the Michael J. Kirwan Dam and Reservoir Portage County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 11/9/2001 67-006 Mar-90 Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance in the University Town Center Mall Project Area, Kent, Portage County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 68-004 5/28/1999 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 71-023 4/13/1993 Literature Review for the Preliminary Alternative Phase of the U.S.Route 35 Relocation/ Expansion (ROS-35-26.22) Through Portions of Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 County, Ohio 71-029 7/12/1999 Literature Review for the Preliminary Alternative Phase of the U.S. Route 35 Relocation/ Expansion (ROS-35-26.22) Through Portions of Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross 3 7/18/2001 12/20/2001 County, Ohio 71-030 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices C-E 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-032 12/15/1995 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio (2 copies) 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-033 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices C-E 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 167 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 71-034 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices B 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 71-034 7/12/1999 Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Relocation of US Route 35 (ROS-35-26.22, P.I.D. No. 9134) in Liberty and Jefferson Townships, Ross County, Ohio Appendices B 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 72-008 6/20/1991 A Phase I (Literature Review) Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed SAN-53-10.15 Highway Improvement Project Sandusky Township, Sandusky County, Ohio. 3 8/14/2001 11/9/2001 74-011 3/17/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Eden Township Road 58 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Eden Township, Ceneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-012 5/6/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the Seneca County Road 16 Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment in Eden Township, Seneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 74-016 5/25/1990 A Phase I (Literature Review) Archaeological Survey of the C.R. 51 Bridge Replacement Project Old Fort, Seneca County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 76-020 11/12/1993 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Using the Western Division sample Area STA/COL - 30-8.35/0.00, in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark 3 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Counties, Ohio 76-021 2/19/1994 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the East Half of the East Canton to East Liverpool Segment of the Route 30 Highway Improvement Project Carroll and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 5/7/2002 Counties, Ohio (2copies) 76-022 7/12/1994 An Evaluation of a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Western Division of the Stark/Columbiana/Carroll Counties (STA/COL-030-18.35/0.00) Route 30 Study Area 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 76-024 8/11/1994 Management Summary of the Literature Review Update and Phase II Cultural Resources Survey of the U.S. Route 30 (STA/COL 30) Belden Ave. to Trump Ave., Stark County, OH. 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 76-025 Aug-93 A Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 76-026 Aug-93 A Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area (Revised 1994) 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 76-034 11/12/1993 a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Route 30 Study Area, Using the Western Division sample Area STA/COL - 30-8.35/0.00, in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Counties, Ohio 76-035 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 6/11/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-039 9/20/1994 Management Summary Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the proposed Route 30 Alternatives Western and Eastern Segments Stark, Carroll and Columbiana Counties Ohio 3 4/19/2001 (2 copies) 76-040 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E 76-040 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E (cont'd) 76-041 9/20/1994 Management Summary Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the proposed Route 30 Alternatives Western and Eastern Segments Stark, Carroll and Columbiana Counties Ohio 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 (2copies) 76-042 7/11/1996 Addendum to the Phase I Architectural Resource Survey for the Proposed U.S. Route 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, Paris, and Sandy Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio 76-043 Dec-97 Detailed Examination of Historic Archaeological Resources and the Determination of Potential Highway Impacts to 18th Century Resources by the Construction of STA-COL 30- 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 18.35/ 0.00 (PID10748) in Carroll, Columbiana and Stark Counties, Ohio (2 copies) 76-044 5/10/1996 Cultural Resource Survey of 49 Additional Work Tracts within the Western Section of the Purposed STA/COL - 030-18.35-0.00 Improvement through Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Counties, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10748) 76-045 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix B, C and D 76-045 10/26/1994 A Cultural Resource Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed U.S. 30 Relocation through Canton, Osnaburg, and Paris Townships, Stark County; Brown, 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 Augusta, and East Townships, Carroll County; and West Township, Columbiana County, Ohio. Appendix E 76-206 Aug-93 Phase I Literature Review and Phase II Locational Reconnaissance for the STA-30-17.21 Project Area 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 77-003 7/14/1977 Archaeological Survey Report SUM- HOWE Road 3 9/13/2001 77-015 2/6/1991 A Phase I literature Search for the Proposed Cleveland-Massilon Road Rerouting Project City of Fairlawn, Summit County, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-025 2/12/1990 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed West Market Street Improvement Project, The City of Akron, Ohio 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 77-94 8/17/2001 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the SUM-High/Broadway Improvements Project Viaduct Replacement Project City of Akron, Summit County 3 9/13/2001 12/20/2001 82-011 Feb-97 A Phase III Cultural Resources Assessment of Sites #33-VI-391, 33-VI-392, 33-VI-393, 33-VI-394 and 33-VI-395 for the VIN-50-8.07 (PID 5213) Bridge Replacement and Road 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Realignment Project, Richland Township, Vinton County, Ohio 82-012 Dec-98 Project Vin-50-27.885 (P.I.D 10537): Evaluation of a Small R/W Take from Old McAruthur Cemetery, Elk Township, Vinton County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 82-013 8/13/1998 Geophysical Survey Elk Township Cemetery, Mcarthur, Ohio, Vinton County VIN-50-27.885, P.I.D. # 10537 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-026.2 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio, Vol. 1 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-026.3 12/23/1994 Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey of the North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge in Muskingum Township, Washington County, Ohio Vol.II 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 84-032 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) (appendices B-H) 168 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT 84-032 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) 84-033 2/21/1996 Phase II Assessment Survey of 33 Wn 283, 33 Wn 285, 33Wn 294,33 Wn 309, and WAS-735-9 for the Proposed North Muskingum River Crossing Bridge Project in Muskingum 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 Township, Washington County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 10592) (appendix A included) 85-009 9/5/1977 Historic/Architectural Survey and Report for WAY-30-11.88/18.34 3 6/11/2001 85-013 10/5/1994 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume I -Report) 3 6/11/2001 85-013 8/7/2001 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume II--Appendices A and B) 3 6/11/2001 85-013 8/7/2001 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (Volume III--Appendices C-I) 3 6/11/2001 88-006 3/25/1994 An Evaluation of a Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Location for the Wyandot/Crawford Route 30 Study Area 3 6/11/2001 88-008.1 1/9/1996 A Reconnaissance Survey for the U.S. Route 30 Relocation in Crane, Eden, Pitt and Antrim Townships, Wyandot County, and Tod, Holmes, Dallas and Bucyrus Townships, Crawford 3 6/11/2001 12/20/2001 County, Ohio (WAY/CRA-030-14.86/0.00, P.I.D. No. 10289) APPENDIX B.(map figures 1-5) 88-009 11/27/1995 Research Proposal for Data Recovery at Sites 33 Wy 674 and 783 for the Proposed Limited Access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Counties, Ohio (1 book) 88-014 Dec. 1995 W Y A/ CRA - 30-14.86/0.00 (PID 10289) CRA-577-7 Discussion of Effect 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 Fay-010 Oct-93 An Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources impacted by the Proposed Relocation of U.S. 35 in Wayne Township, Fayette County and Concord Township, Ross County 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 11/26/1997 Additional Archaeological and Architectural Information for the evaluation of Stark, Carroll, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, U.S. 30 Relocation Project Reconnaissance Survey (2 3 4/19/2001 copies) 11/26/1997 STA/COL-30-18.35/0.00 Gray and Pape, Inc., Response to OHPO comments (3copies) 3 4/19/2001 4/30/2001 2/24/1999 Addendum to Phase I Literature Review, Predictive Model, and Archaeological and Architectural Cultural Resource Survey of the AUG/LOG-33-26.875/0.00 (PID 16385) in Clay, 3 5/1/2001 Duchouqet, Goshen, Pusheta, and Union Townships in Auglaize County, Ohio, Bloomfield, McArthur, Richland, Stokes, and Washington Townships in Logan County, Ohio and Dinsmore and Jackson Townships in Shelby County, Ohio 8/5/1997 A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, Athens 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) (2 copies) A Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) (P.I.D. No. 14040) (Figure 2, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 sheets1-3) 6/3/1997 Addendum to Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York Township, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Athens County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) 6/21/1999 Second Addendum to Phase I Literature Review and Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Improvement of U.S. Route 33 near Nelsonville (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00) in York 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Township, Athens County, and Starr and Ward Townships, Hocking County, Ohio (P.I.D. No. 14040) (two copies) Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) (Figures 5-6, 2 copies) 12/20/1999 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies for the FAI-U.S. 22/U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) Lancaster Bypass Preferred Alignment in Greenfield, Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 12/20/1999 Phase II Site Evaluation Studies for the FAI-U.S. 22/U.S. 33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) Lancaster Bypass Preferred Alignment in Greenfield, Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio APPENDIX: E 3/28/1997 Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 7/18/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (two drafts). Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D) Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Appendix D, Table D-4) Updated Literature Review and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio (Figures 2,3,4, 6, 17) 9/13/1996 Updated Literature Review and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Lancaster Bypass Corridor FAI-US22/US33-9.59/9.95 (P.I.D. No. 12613) in Greenfield, 3 5/1/2001 6/11/2001 Hocking, Berne, and Pleasant Townships, Fairfield County, Ohio 11/24/1998 Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Replacement of the U.S. 33 Pomeroy-Mason Bridge (MEG-33-25.410) in Salisbury Township, Meigs County, Ohio, 3 5/1/2001 and Waggener District, Mason County, West Virginia (P.I.D. No. 12524) DRAFT 8/7/2001 An Assessment of the Historic Architectural Resources Potentially Affected by the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 Project Wayne County, Ohio (two copies) 3 6/11/2001 6/10/1999 Additional Phase II Testing at 33 We 360 within the Proposed WAY-30-11.86 (PID 6497) Feasible Alternative in East Union Township, Wayne County, Ohio 3 6/11/2001 1/22/1999 Research Proposal for Phase III Data Recovery for Project WAY-30-11.86 (PID 6497) in East Union Township, Wayne County, Ohio, for Archaeological Site 33 We 342 3 6/11/2001 2/4/1999 Property Boundary Examinations of WAY-297-8, WAY-295-8, WAY-279-14, WAY-277-14, WAY-269-14, WAY-64-14, WAY-237-14, and WAY-238-14 for the WAY-30-11.86 3 6/11/2001 (PID 6497) U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wooster and East Union Townships, Wayne County, Ohio 169 APPENDIX B: List of Reports by Consecutive University of Cincinnati Catalog Number (UC Number). ODOT UC Date Title Status Date Received Date Returned Number Number from ODOT to ODOT Nov-95 Phase II Site Evaluati9on Studies of Nine Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Five Historic Archaeological Sites, and One Architectural Location to be Impacted by the Proposed Limited 3 6/11/2001 Access Right-of-Way of the U.S. Route 30 Relocation Project in Wyandot and Crawford Counties Ohio (WYA/CRA-030-14.86/0.00; P.I.D. No. 10289) Nov-00 CRA/RIC 30-9.91/0.00 PID No. 10762 U.S. Route 30 Relocation Crawford and Richland Counties, Ohio ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 6/22/2001 7/18/2001 3/2/1999 Final Report, phase II Cultural Resources investigations of Site 33Fe20 Fay-35-7.51, PID No. 6912 Union Township, Fayette County, Ohio 3 7/18/2001 8/14/2001 STATUS KEY: 1= report included in Project database, 2= report included in in the Sample database, 3= report excluded from Project and Sample databases 170 APPENDIX C. 1 MODELING SAMPLE SITE DATA FILE INFORMATION œ LANDCOVER County File Source GIMS Theme # File Size* Data Date Allen www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2010 7.05 1994 Athens www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2011 19.8 1994 Auglaize www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1762 4.71 1994 Butler www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1622 13.3 1994 Carroll www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1981 11.8 1994 Champaign www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1685 6.33 1994 Clinton www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1648 3.78 1994 Columbiana www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1915 15.1 1994 Crawford www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1737 4.86 1994 Delaware www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1763 8.0 1994 Fairfield www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1917 9.10 1994 Franklin www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1713 16.4 1994 Hancock www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1716 5.28 1994 Licking www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2015 11.9 1994 Logan www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1954 8.31 1994 Ross www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1985 28.8 1994 Stark www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1944 15.1 1994 Washington www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1940 22.0 1994 Wyandot www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1741 5.59 1994 * compressed, and size listed in Mb. 171 APPENDIX C. 2 MODELING SAMPLE SITE DATA FILE INFORMATION œ SOIL UNITS County File Source GIMS Theme # File Size* Data Date Allen www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2062 10.4 1965 Athens www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2061 11.6 1985 Carroll www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1979 6.07 1983 Champaign www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2038 7.84 1971 Clinton www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1633 11.1 1962 Delaware www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1755 12.7 1969 Fairfield www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1919 24.3 1996 Franklin www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2040 26.2 1999 Hancock www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1717 7.67 1973 Licking www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2354 36.5 1992 Logan www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1952 7.26 1977 Ross www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1988 19.4 1967 Washington www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2349 31.2 1977 Wyandot www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1738 7.26 1980 * compressed, and size listed in Mb. 172 APPENDIX C. 3 MODELING SAMPLE SITE DATA FILE INFORMATION œ GLACIAL GEOLOGY County File Source GIMS Theme # File Size Data Date Champaign www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2171 264 Kb 1979 Clinton www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1644 167 Kb 1967 Franklin www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 1929 125 Kb 1958 Licking www.ohiodnr.com\gims\ 2152 709 Kb 1966 173