No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHEAST FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - PDP140014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (5)Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment DENVER • DURANGO • HOTCHKISS • IDAHO ERO Resources Corp. 1842 Clarkson St. Denver, CO 80218 303.830.1188 www.eroresources.com CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for Civitas, Incorporated 1200 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 and Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Written by Jessica Gabriel Abigail Sanocki State of Colorado Permit No. 2014-31 ERO Project #5572 July 2014 ERO Project #5572 i p:\5500 projects\5572 southeast community park ft collins\cultural\7_15_2014 draft 5572 se community park.doc ABSTRACT Civitas, Incorporated (Civitas), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to conduct a cultural resources survey of the approximately 54-acre Southeast Community Park (park) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). Civitas is proposing to develop additional ball fields, a playground, a new bicycle motocross track, and a system of dirt and concrete trails on either side of McClelland Creek within the park. As a result of the proposed undertaking, Civitas is required to obtain a Corps Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. The cultural resource inventory was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966, as amended) and the Corps Section 404 Clean Water Act. The cultural resource survey of the park resulted in the identification and documentation of a previously unrecorded segment of the Dixon Canyon Lateral (5LR13031.2). The State Historic Preservation Office currently considers all linear resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places unless proven otherwise through documentation and archival research of the linear resources in their entirety. The entirety of the Dixon Canyon Lateral (5LR13031) has not been officially evaluated in Larimer County and, therefore, is currently treated as an eligible resource. However, the newly documented segment of the ditch does not retain sufficient historic and physical integrity to support the overall eligibility of the entire ditch. Therefore, Civitas’ development of the park would have no impact on any historic resources, and ERO recommends a determination of “no historic properties adversely effected” for the project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(d)(1) of the NHPA. ERO Project #5572 ii p:\5500 projects\5572 southeast community park ft collins\cultural\7_15_2014 draft 5572 se community park.doc CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Project Area........................................................................................... 1 Cultural Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 Historic Period (AD 1860 to 1960) ................................................................................3 Irrigation and Canals ................................................................................................3 File and Literature Review .................................................................................................. 6 Methods............................................................................................................................... 6 Criteria for Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 8 Survey Results .................................................................................................................. 10 Site Description ............................................................................................................10 Summary and Management Recommendations................................................................ 12 References Cited ............................................................................................................... 13 TABLES Table 1. Previous cultural resource surveys intersecting the project area. .........................6 FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................2 APPENDICES Appendix A Cultural Resource Location Maps Appendix B OAHP Cultural Resource Forms ERO Project #5572 1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO JULY 2014 Introduction Civitas, Incorporated (Civitas), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to conduct a cultural resources survey of the Southeast Community Park (park) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). Civitas is proposing to develop additional ball fields, a playground, a new bicycle motocross track, and a system of dirt and concrete trails on either side of McClelland Creek within the park. As a result of the proposed undertaking, Civitas is required to obtain a Corps Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. The cultural resource inventory was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966, as amended) and the Corps Section 404 Clean Water Act. ERO archaeologist Jessica Gabriel completed the fieldwork and pedestrian survey on June 11, 2014. Description of the Project Area The park is located on the southeast side of Fort Collins and is surrounded by modern residential and commercial development in in the 6 th Principal Meridian, Township 6 North, Range 68 West, Section 4 in Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). McClelland Creek meanders west to east centrally through the park. The west half of the park on the north side of the creek and the entire portion of the park south of the creek are undeveloped and are covered in dense prairie grasses growing from pale brown sandy loam alluvial sediments. Grasses consist of western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), blue grama (Chonodrosium gracile), green needlegrass (Nassella virudula), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis leyss). Cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia, P. deltoides, and P. x acuminate) and willows (Salix amygdaloides, S. exigua, and S. irrorata) grow along McClelland Creek and the adjacent extant portions of the Dixon Canyon Lateral. The elevation of the project area averages 1,496 meters (4,910 feet) above sea level. Project Area Prepared for: City of Fort Collins File: 5572 Figure 1.mxd [dlH] October 24, 2013 Figure 1 Vicinity Map Southeast Community Park Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2013] ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. COLORADO Location Section 4, T6N, R68W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 498654mE, 4484468mN Latitude, Longitude: 40.510927°N, 105.015887°W USGS Fort Collins, CO Quadrangle Larimer County, Colorado 01,750500 ± feet Path: P:\5500 Projects\5572 Southeast Community Park Ft Collins\Maps\5572 Figure 1.mxd CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 3 Cultural Overview Historic Period (AD 1860 to 1960) The earliest agricultural settlements in the eastern plains of Colorado were established by Hispanic settlers. Until the end of the Mexican-American War and the transfer of control of large areas of the west to the United States in 1848, most American contact with the area was in the form of exploratory and military parties (Church et al. 2007). A second period of agricultural settlement was initiated by the discovery of gold in Colorado in 1858 (Church et al. 2007). Large numbers of individuals left the economically depressed Mississippi Valley to travel to Colorado in the hopes of wealth. While many failed and returned to the east, a number stayed to occupy mining communities or establish agricultural or commercial venues in the Colorado plains to supply miners and travelers. The United States government began to encourage western expansion and settlement following the Civil War by establishing a series of acts. The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged the settlement of Colorado’s plains for agricultural purposes by ensuring settlers could obtain cheap land. By the 1880s, waves of settlers were arriving in the plains and claiming the land set aside by Congress for settlement. By 1889, permanent agricultural and ranching operations had been established throughout the plains (Mehls 1984). The sustainability of these settlement efforts was increased by the establishment of irrigation systems and reservoirs across the plains (Church et al. 2007). Irrigation and Canals Colorado’s semiarid climate made the development of irrigation necessary for the settlement of the area. Irrigation ditches and canals across the state divert water from rivers and streams and carry it to agricultural areas and reservoirs. The era of historical agricultural irrigation in Colorado began in the south-central part of the state in the San Luis Valley with the construction of the San Luis People’s Ditch in 1852. Irrigation development continued in the late 1850s and 1860s (Colorado Irrigation Centennial Committee 1952). Typically, the first ditches constructed in an area, known as pioneer ditches, were used to irrigate low-lying areas in the floodplains and bottomlands by drawing water off of existing sources such as creeks, rivers, and streams. These early CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 4 irrigation systems required little engineering or technology (King 1984). The best land in the immediate vicinity of rivers was claimed early on, so later settlers of lands further from the river sought a way to carry water through ditch systems for a greater distance (Colorado Irrigation Centennial Committee 1952). In 1861, at the first session of the Colorado Territorial Legislature, an act was passed that allowed a land owner who was not adjacent to a stream to construct a ditch through land lying between his land and the stream to gain access to irrigation water (City of Boulder 2009). By the early 1860s, settlers were constructing much larger and longer ditch irrigation systems that required more sophisticated engineering and construction techniques. Some of these new systems expanded or replaced the early pioneer ditches and some were entirely new enterprises. These more complicated ditches ran at the minimum grade possible to keep water flowing and allowed carriage of water along ridge lines and into neighboring water basins in order to maximize the amount of land that could be irrigated by the ditch. Whereas some of the early pioneer ditches were constructed by individuals and some by several irrigators who banded together to form a mutual ditch company, larger ditches were almost always constructed by mutual ditch companies (Holleran 2005). Mutual ditch companies are unique legal entities in Colorado that allow ditches to be used by multiple individuals who are shareholders in the ditch company that operates the facility on their behalf. A share in a mutual ditch company represents an actual pro rata ownership interest in all of the water rights, ditches, facilities, and other assets of the company. The shareholders are, in essence, the company (Hobbs 1997). In 1872, the Colorado Territorial Supreme Court recognized that irrigators had a natural right to carry water across intervening land owned by others in order to irrigate their land. Therefore, the owners of an irrigation ditch had an almost irrefutable right to construct and continually access, operate, and maintain their ditch along its entire length (Hobbs 1997). The development of new irrigation ditches in Colorado began to be viewed as an investment opportunity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with speculators often enticing investors from the eastern United States with promises of quick wealth. Many of CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 5 these investment schemes were associated with land developments that promised irrigated acreage to unwary buyers. Large sums of money were spent constructing irrigation systems to reach more remote areas of land in the hopes of creating a profit by selling water rights or, in many cases, just a contractual right to use water from water rights owned by another (Holleran 2005). Colorado’s water laws are based on the appropriation doctrine, which protects the water rights of earlier users from diminishment by later users. Therefore, many of these later ditch investment companies were less successful than originally planned due to the limited quantity of water available to them (Holleran 2005). While many of the investment-style water companies tried to incorporate older systems or buy out senior water rights, it was soon realized that the maintenance costs of the irrigation ditches would prevent water companies from making a profit (Holleran 2005). Many of the irrigation systems developed by investment water companies were taken over by their users in the form of mutual ditch companies or irrigation districts. Irrigation districts were developed as a method to help diffuse the cost of developing a ditch system. The districts could be organized by a majority of the landowners within their boundaries with acquisitions and construction paid through bonds paid off by assessments on all irrigated lands in the district. Irrigation districts were soon developed in some regions of Colorado as a means to acquire earlier failed irrigation companies and develop reservoirs and new canals to support existing systems. Irrigation districts had the advantage of using a taxation system based on the amount of water used by a landowner to help diffuse the cost of building and maintaining an irrigation system (Holleran 2005). As the demand on Colorado’s water resources increased, it became necessary for the state to implement laws overseeing water rights and monitoring the amount of water diverted by each ditch system (Mehls and Mehls 2006). In 1889, state law mandated the installation of headgates to control and measure water flow. Most early attempts at water measurement tended to be unreliable as these methods were based on the calibration of laterals and headgates. Accurate flow measurements required the development of a measurement structure separate from the control gate. The need for accurate measurements led to the development of several devices including the Cipoletti weir, a CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 6 measured opening across the flow of the ditch, and the Parshall flume, which is precalibrated to give a true flow measurement at a range of volumes (Holleran 2005). The technology available for the construction of irrigation ditch systems has also improved and many historic ditches have undergone modifications and improvements that help conserve water and monitor flow allotments. One significant change in ditch construction is the increased use of concrete, which began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the cost decreased. Concrete can be seen in ditch features such as headgates and weirs, but also as a channel liner in sections of a canal particularly susceptible to erosion or seepage. Another improvement can be seen in the development of patent iron or steel headgates in the 1890s. These iron and steel headgates replaced wooden gates, which had short life spans. Manufactured gates are usually set in concrete headwalls, although some earlier constructions were stone (Holleran 2005). File and Literature Review ERO conducted a file and literature review with the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) on April 30, 2014. The file identified that two previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the project area; however, the previous surveys did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within or nearby the current project area. The surveys that intersect the current project area are discussed below in Table 1. Table 1. Previous cultural resource surveys intersecting the project area. OAHP Survey No. Report Title Cultural Resources within the Current Project Area LR.LG.R13 Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1862- 1994 (CLG Project 08-93-80042.7), Larimer County, Colorado None MC.CH.NR78 Paleontological technical report: Interstate 25 North Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado None Methods The purpose of this cultural resource survey is to provide compliance under Section 106 of the NHPA (and its implementing regulations under 36 CFR Part 800) by undertaking a “reasonable and good faith” effort to identify historic properties (defined as CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 7 listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)). This project used standard pedestrian survey transects spaced 15 to 20 meters apart to identify unknown cultural resources within the defined area of potential effect (APE). Newly identified sites were recorded using the appropriate cultural resource documentation forms from OAHP (Appendix B). As applicable, all previously recorded cultural resources were revisited and, depending on the age and quality of the previous recording, were either rerecorded and evaluated, or a revisitation form was completed if no changes were evident. Landscape digital photographs were taken to document the overall setting of the project area. At least two photographs were taken of each site, including all features and the site datum (whether physically established or for mapping purposes). Site maps were produced using a mapping grade (submeter-capable) Trimble GeoXT Explorer global positioning system (GPS) unit (Appendix A). The elements of the site map include all features, diagnostic artifacts, artifact concentrations, vegetation breaks, major contour topography, modern features, and the site datum. Cultural resources can take the form of a building, structure, object, or site and can include districts, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural properties. The National Park Service (NPS) has established an age criteria guideline of 50 years in order for a cultural resource to be evaluated as potential historic property, but see criteria consideration (g) for exceptions to the age criteria. The NRHP defines an archaeological site as “the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains” (NPS 1993). Archaeological sites must retain sufficient context to convey purposeful and patterned human activity representing one or more definable activities. Isolated finds represent evidence of past human activity that is either not patterned (as in the inadvertent loss or discard of one or more artifacts) or represents an activity that is too limited to qualify as a site, or represent one or more episodes of conscious discard of material culture that was manufactured and/or used for its primary purpose elsewhere. Professional judgment is used to distinguish between purposeful activity and isolated occurrences of artifacts that are often attributable to “background noise.” Federal agencies often define the number of artifacts that constitute the difference between a site and an isolated find and those CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 8 definitions are used when applicable. Isolated thermal features, rock art panels, and isolated human burials are considered archaeological sites. Historic period archaeological sites include such purposeful activities as habitation, ranching or agricultural complexes, or mining complexes. Historic dumps are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A single artifact class such as sanitary cans is recorded as an isolated occurrence; conversely, dumps that exhibit many artifact classes and date prior to the early part of the 20th century may be documented as archaeological sites. Linear features such as water irrigation systems, transmission lines, and roads are documented as sites. An isolated fence line is generally not recorded as a site unless it demarcates a boundary significant to the history of the area and can be physically linked with a purposeful activity. Single or small clusters of mining prospect pits with no associated artifacts are documented as isolated finds due to their general ubiquity and limited information potential. Criteria for Evaluation Cultural resources documented during this survey were evaluated for eligibility to be listed on the NRHP. NRHP significance criteria are codified under 36 CFR 60.4, summarized below: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures; property owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been removed CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 9 from their original location; reconstructed historic buildings; properties that are primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria, or if they fall within the following categories: a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for its architecture, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with an historic person or event; or c) a birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d) a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no building or structure with the same association has survived; or f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Eligible sites are those that qualify under one or more of the criteria for eligibility listed above. In addition, the research questions posed in regional contexts (e.g., Gilmore et al. 1999) were used for establishing significance under Criterion D. The seven aspects of integrity were evaluated for each potential historic property – location, design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling, and association. Aspects of integrity for those cultural resources that do not meet any of the above criteria were not discussed, nor are they discussed for archaeological resources. Potential historic properties must possess most, if not all, of the seven aspects in order to convey eligibility. Eroded or otherwise heavily disturbed sites are not considered eligible. Sites evaluated as needing data may conform to the eligibility criteria, but require further work to determine NRHP status. In most cases, these sites are prehistoric or historic with suspected buried cultural material or CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 10 historic sites where additional research is necessary to determine historical significance. Sites that are evaluated as not eligible do not meet any of the eligibility criteria and/or have lost physical integrity. Since federal land exchange projects transfer lands from federal jurisdiction to private ownership, historic properties within the parcels must be evaluated for effects from the loss of federal management pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.59(a)(2)(vii) of the NHPA. Survey Results The cultural resource survey of the Southeast Community Park resulted in the identification and documentation of a previously unrecorded segment of the Dixon Canyon Lateral (5LR13031.2). Segment 5LR13031.2 is recommended as a nonsupporting segment of an eligible resource, the Dixon Canyon Lateral (5LR13031). Site Description Site Number: 5LR13031.2 Site Type: Dixon Canyon Lateral (segment) Site Description: The recorded segment of the Dixon Canyon Lateral trends west to east through the industrial parks and neighborhoods on the southeast side of Fort Collins. Extant portions of the ditch parallel the north side of McClelland Creek through the park on the northeast corner of the intersection of Ziegler and Kechter Roads. The park and ditch are overgrown with tall, dense prairie grasses, which yield low ground visibility (15 percent) of the pale brown sandy loam sediments in the area. Medium-sized willow and cottonwood trees grow along the ditch and McClelland Creek. The segment is located at an elevation of 5,470 feet above sea level. Segment 5LR13031.2 intermittently meanders from west to east through the undeveloped grass fields in the west half of the park. Visible segments of the ditch are overgrown with tall grasses, and average approximately 4 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The original path of the ditch along the east side of Ziegler Road has been backfilled and covered with a concrete sidewalk, and the ditch in the east half of the park has been obliterated by construction of a dirt bicycle motocross track and baseball diamond. Additionally, a roughly 110-foot-long section of the ditch was backfilled for a temporary CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 11 access road to the bridge on McClelland Creek. A wood hay feeder (Feature 1 (F1)) and a loosely stacked pile of dimensional lumber and steel pipes (F2) are evidence of past use of the field for grazing and housing livestock. South of McClelland Creek, a wide, shallow ditch measuring approximately 20 feet wide and less than 3 feet deep has been excavated along the east side of Ziegler Road to improve flood drainage in the park, but is of modern construction and, therefore, is not considered a feature of the historical property. Continuous commercial and residential development on the southeast side of Fort Collins since the 1990s has resulted in the disrepair and apparent abandonment of segment 5LR13031.2 of the Dixon Canyon Lateral. Between 2000 and 2004, Fossil Ridge High School was built, and development on the park began with construction of concrete sidewalks along the existing surrounding roads and the high school’s baseball diamond on the northeast corner of the park. A north-south trending segment of the Dixon Canyon Lateral that paralleled Ziegler Road was backfilled for the sidewalk. The ditch on the eastern half of the ditch within the park was further impacted by construction of a bicycle motocross track on the west side of the baseball diamond in 2010 (City of Fort Collins 2014). The Dixon Canyon Ditch & Reservoir Company and the Dixon Lateral Ditch Company were both organized in 1885 and actively excavated ditches and reservoirs on the south side of Fort Collins until the 1910s (Colorado State Archives 2014). The Dixon Canyon Lateral was excavated at an unknown date during this time and was abandoned like many of the other components of the Dixon Canyon system during the 1980s and 1990s due to urban encroachment (Colorado Decision Support System 2014). Management Recommendations: No further work. ERO recommends segment 5LR13031.2 of the Dixon Canyon Lateral as a nonsupporting segment and does not contribute to the eligibility of the entire resource. Although the overall linear resource is associated with the early development of irrigation and agriculture in Larimer County and, therefore, is considered eligible under Criterion A, segment 5LR13031.2 does not retain sufficient integrity to support that eligibility. The ditch is not associated with a significant person in history (Criterion B), nor does the ditch represent a distinctive type CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 12 or period of construction or the work of a craftsman (Criterion C). The abandoned extant sections of the segment are unlikely to contain intact buried deposits that could yield significant information important to the history of the area (Criterion D). The extant sections of segment 5LR13031.2 retain the aspect of materials and some of the aspect of location, but has not been maintained in more than a decade and the aspect of design is no longer visible. As a result of park and urban development, the segment no longer maintains the aspects of feeling, setting, or association. The aspect of workmanship is not present. Summary and Management Recommendations The cultural resource survey of the Southeast Community Park resulted in the identification and documentation of a previously unrecorded segment of the Dixon Canyon Lateral in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The State Historic Preservation Office currently considers all linear resources eligible for listing on the NRHP unless proven otherwise through documentation and archival research of the linear resources in their entirety. The entirety of the Dixon Canyon Lateral has not been officially evaluated and, therefore, is currently treated as an eligible resource. However, the newly documented segment of this ditch does not retain sufficient historic and physical integrity to support the overall eligibility of the entire ditch. Therefore, Civitas’ proposed development of the park would not have an adverse effect on the ditch, and ERO recommends a determination of “no historic properties affected” for the project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(d)(1) of the NHPA. CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 13 References Cited Church, Minette C., Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells 2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists. City of Boulder 2009 City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan, Volume 2. Electronic document, http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Utilities/Projects/source_water_mp/ swmp_volume_2_final_lr.pdf, accessed March 17, 2013. City of Fort Collins 2014 “Future Parks.” Electronic document, http://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/future-parks.php, accessed July 11, 2014. Colorado Decision Support System 2014 “Dixon Canyon Reservoir Structure Summary Report,” Colorado Division of Water Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Decision Support System Structure Report webpage. Electronic document, http://cdss.state.co.us /onlineTools/Pages/StructuresDiversion.aspx, accessed July 11, 2014. Colorado Irrigation Centennial Committee 1952 A hundred years of irrigation in Colorado: 100 years of organized and continuous irrigation, 1852-1952. Denver: Colorado Water Conservation Board. Colorado State Archives 2014 “Colorado Water Companies 1861-1914.” Electronic document, http://192.70.175.163/dpa/doit/archives/water/WaterIncorpA-I.pdf, accessed July 11, 2014. Gilmore, Kevin P., Marcia Tate, Mark L. Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terry McBride, and Margaret Wood 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Hobbs, Jr., Justice Gregory J. 1997 Colorado Water Law: An Historical Overview. Holleran, Michael 2005 Historic Context for Irrigation and Water Supply: Ditches and Canals in Colorado. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. King, Joseph E. 1984 Water. Colorado Engineering Context, pp. 1-52. Colorado Historical Society. CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK – FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ERO Project #5572 14 Mehls, Steven F. 1984 Colorado Plains Historic Context. Ms. on file at the Colorado State Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mehls, Carol D. and Steven F. Mehls 2006 Weld County Historic Agriculture Context. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. National Park Service (NPS) 1993 National Register Bulletin 36, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites and Districts.” ERO Project #5572 Appendix A Cultural Resource Location Maps For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) ERO Project #5572 Appendix B OAHP Cultural Resource Forms For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18)