0403_AnsonLF_culturalresources_19980102

0403 Anson Landfill
Some Notes on the Cultural Resource (Archaeological) Study for Site Suitability
by Donna J Wilson, March 30, 2020
Phase I study by Garrow & Assoc. identified 17 potential sites. Of these, 12 were recommended for
additional testing. 5 were recommended for no further investigation (82, 124, 128, 131, and 132).
Study was between Sept. 1991 and Jan 1992, and report dated April 1992. Site 12 was the site chosen
for the proposed project, out of several other sites that were also investigated. Study area is bounded
by Brown Creek on the north and west and Pinch Gut Creek on the east, and the RR on the south.
June 1992 letter from DCR/SHPO regarding the Phase I study. Concurred with the findings. 5 sites no
further study are 82, 124, 128, 131, and 132. Twelve sites need further study - 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 75, 76,
83, 125, 126, 127, and 129.
Phase 2 study was conducted for 5 of those 12 sites. Those 5 were in areas projected for development
during the 5 year permit period. The remainder will never be impacted or won't be impacted for a
number of years. These include the sites in the proposed borrow area east of Boylin Road. The 5 sites
studied were 60, 61, 64, 76, and 127. Garrow concluded that 4 of the 5 were not eligible, but that site
60 should be considered for eligibility, and a mitigation plan to recover objects should be prepared.
Second Phase I study - conducted by Garrow on property that was not included in the original study.
Area of (1) 45 acres south of the CSX railroad and west of Boylin Road, (2) 15 acres near the proposed
facility entrance, and (3) 30 acres north of the CSX railroad and west of Boylin Road. Study identified 2
sites, 130 and 133. Garrow concluded that one site, 133, may be eligible and needed further study.
However, it was Chambers intention to avoid site 133 and therefore no study was conducted.
Tracking site numbers and status
Not eligible - 82, 124, 128, 131, and 132
Study needed - 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 75, 76, 83, 125, 126, 127, and 129
Studied - 60, 61, 64, 76, and 127
Not studied because wouldn't be impacted- 62, 63, 75, 83, 125, 126, 129
Not eligible - 61, 64, 76, and 127
Eligible - 60, this site was studied, and artifacts removed, to reach no further action
Potential eligible but won't be impacted - 133
62 - northeast of landfill (part recommended not eligible, part potentially eligible to be protected)
63 - east of landfill to be protected
75 - east of landfill to be protected
83 - not shown on large map but was determined ineligible, within the landfill footprint north end
87 - shown on large map, but was never considered a site needing further study. I believe the map
was supposed to have shown site 83, but site 87 was shown instead. Mentioned on page 40 and 75
of the Phase I study.
125 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
126 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
129 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
133 - close to Boylin Rd, southeast of landfill, to be protected
Jan. 1993 - Cultural Resources Phase 11 Testing

Feb. 1, 1993 - Cultural Resources letter. Concur that the site 31AN133 is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. Site that is not eligible is Site 31AN130.
Feb. 8, 1993 - Response letter
Archaeology - "Chambers fully intends to avoid Site 31AN133 and therefore, no further testing will be
required." A mitigation plan will be prepared for Site 31AN60 and the required Phase III testing (data
recovery program) conducted prior to any construction activities.
June 24, 1993 - From DEQ to Chambers, about cultural resource study. Section has reviewed the
Chambers response dated 4-22-1993. 10 sites still require further action. 2 site eligible for NRHP. One
is in an area not to be developed and will be protected in place. DEQ wants copies of the protection
plan for this site, and concurrence from DCR. The other site is in the landfill footprint, and study will
recover items, provide concurrence from DCR.
Chambers stated they would not conduct further investigation at 4 sites which require Phase 2
investigation. Are located in areas not to be developed by the landfill. Provide plans to protect these
sites in place, and concurrence from DCR.
There are 4 sites that will be impacted that require further investigation. Phase 2 investigation must be
completed, results to be submitted to SWS.
May 30, 1995 - Report from Garrow & Assoc. Submitting draft Phase 2 study. Study was done for sites
60, 61, 64, 76, and 127. Only one site, 60, is eligible for listing. The second Phase I study identified two
sites, 130 and 133, with only site 133 recommended for further study. Both of these reports were
reviewed and approved by NCSHPO (according to the letter). Sites not eligible are 82, 130 (Phase I
survey); 61, 64, 76, and 127 (Phase 2 study), 83 and 62 (A&C) (Phase 2 recommended not yet SHPO
approved). Sites that are potential eligible but Chambers determined they will not be impacted but will
be protected - 62 (B), 63, and 75. Site eligible - 60.
Nov. 12, 1996 - Response to comments letter from GZA to DEQ - DEQ had request that pertinent cultural
resource features be added to Drawings F-2 and F-3 as required by .1619(d)(1). They replied that
significant cultural sites were shown on the revised sheet F-3. Other cultural resource sites not shown.
They corrected the label for Site 31AN33 to be corrected as Site 31AN133. Reference to Site 31AN87 is
mentioned on pages 40 and 75 of the Phase I study, April 1992.
Nov. 1998 - Recovery Study of Site 31AN 60 - First identified in 1991 survey and reconnaissance of
3300+ acres within 3 tracts that were targeted/considered for proposed development. Phase 2
investigation at this site was in Oct 1997. The initial Phase I survey was in Sept. and Oct. 1991 (Gunn and
Wilson 1992). Phase 2 testing at the site identified 3 major loci. The 3 tracts that were studied were
Sites 1, 11, and 12, all considered for proposed development. Site 12 was the one chosen for
development, and an intensive Phase I survey was conducted between Nov 1991 and Jan 1992.
March 12, 1999 - Response letter from Ames & Assoc. to DENR, PTC application. Section 2.2.3.3 has
been revised to include plans for preserving NRHP eligible and potentially eligible sites. Page 2-24 was
revised.
The revised page 2-24 - Nine sites were identified as potentially eligible - 60, 62, 63, 75, 87, 125, 126,
129, and 133. Of these, only site 60 will be disturbed. Sites that may be disturbed by borrow activities
are 87, 125, 126, and 129. Signs will be posted to protect, until or unless they are removed from
possible eligibility.

June 1, 2000 - DEQ Fact Sheet - 9 sites are potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the facility
boundaries. Site 31AN60 will be disturbed, artifacts have been recovered from this site. DCR has
approved. Sites 87, 125, 126, 129 may be disturbed by future soil borrow activities. Facility will protect
these sites from disturbance prior to further investigation by posting signs. Sites 62, 63, 75, and 133 are
located in areas with no planned disturbance.
Conclusion - Sites that were possibly eligible, but were not investigated fully, are not within the
proposed expansion, along the west and north sides of the existing landfill. These sites are:
62 - northeast of landfill (part recommended not eligible, part potentially eligible to be protected)
63 - east of landfill to be protected
75 - east of landfill to be protected
83 - not shown on large map but was determined ineligible, within the landfill footprint north end
87 - shown on large map, but was never considered a site needing further study. I believe the map
was supposed to have shown site 83, but site 87 was shown instead. Mentioned on page 40 and 75
of the Phase I study.
125 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
126 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
129 - borrow area southeast of landfill to be protected
133 - close to Boylin Rd, southeast of landfill, to be protected