Mulholland, Susan C.

Phase I reconnaissance survey was conducted on S.P. 2610-10 from the intersection with Highway 55 in Barrett, Minnesota, south along TH 59 to the Grant County Iine. The survey consisted of three parts. A geomorphic survey was conducted to determine the subsurface stratigraphy, particularly potential for paleosoils, along the corridor. An archeological survey tested for the presence of archeological sites, using both pedestrian walk-over and shovel tests. A standing structure review was conducted of all structures with 100 feet of the highway. The object we was to assess the potential for and presence of historical properties that might receive impacts from the undertaking. Pre-contact cultural materials were recovered 15 locations. Of these, 12 sites appear to be limited lithic scatters or isolated find spots; these sites are considered not eligible for the National Register. The other 3 sites yielded more materials and could potentially be more than limited lithic scatters. Coring date at each site provided information on subsurface stratigraphy and potential for subsurface integrity. Sites evaluated immediately south of the project uniformly had nearly all cultural materials confined to the upper dark horizon (whether plow zone or A horizon). Site 21GR27 may have some original A horizon remaining below the plow zone. If impacts cannot be avoided, a limited evaluation is recommended. Site 21 GR31 appears to have good potential for intact subsurface deposits in die grassy area, although the plowed field appears to be disturbed. If impacts cannot be avoided, an evaluation is recommended. Site 21GR34 does not appear to have any A horizon materials below the plow zone. It is considered not eligible for the National Register. It is recommended that management considerations need to be made for sites 21GR27 and 21GR31. Avoidance of the site areas is recommended; alternatively, evaluation could be conducted to determine eligibility for the National Register.

These appendices pertain to report 2002-10: Appendix A. Known Archaeological Sites, Location Data Appendix B. Environmental Variables Considered Appendix C. Statistical Output Appendix D. Known Archaeological Sites, Environmental Data Appendix E. Random Points, Location Data, Environmental Variables and Probability Appendix F. Licenses and Permissions Appendix G. Random Points, USGS Maps Appendix H. Shovel Test Forms

The goal of this research was to develop methods for identifying indicators of historic and prehistoric surface hydrologic features in available Geographic Information System (GIS) data to create a GIS layer representing relict hydrography for inclusion in Mn/Model, Mn/DOT's statewide archaeological predictive model. This research addresses the limitation imposed on the current predictive model by the absence of historic and prehistoric surface water features, such as drained lakes and wetlands. Because several important variables are derived from surface hydrography in Mn/Model, the use of historic/prehistoric hydrologic features, instead of strictly modern features, will greatly improve its predictive accuracy. This research resulted in an automated tool, developed using ArcGIS ModelBuilder and based on ESRI ArcGIS ArcInfo 9.2 (ESRI 2005), that can be used on any county in the state where the input data are available.

Mn/Model, a GIS-based model for site prediction in Minnesota, performed adequately for northeastern Minnesota; but the more numerous Woodland tradition sites used to derive the models overwhelmed the older Paleoindian/Archaic sites. The project was designed to enhance the Mn/Model databases to better represent the landscapes of northeastern Minnesota with respect to these early sites. Researchers conducted a logistic regression analysis of 108 known sites for common environmental parameters with four variables: distance to water, stream flow, pollen average, and height above mean elevation within 90m. Field survey by shovel testing was restricted to 50 random points. Although locations of high, middle, and low probability for archaeological resources were tested, none of the locations had such resources. The lack of new sites in this survey is not considered an indication that the model is invalid, but more a result of the use of only randomly chosen points. The non-site data generated are useful for enhancing Mn/Model but the logistic regression model developed from the known sites still requires testing.