In light of the electromagnetic survey results, several possibilities for further
investigation of identified anomalies exist. The feature shown in the last figure (figure 5)
should be investigated archaeologically (i.e. excavation), but could also be examined in
greater detail geophysically prior to ground truthing. Other anomalous features in zone 2
are more ambiguous and follow up geophysical investigation of select sub-sections could
greatly contribute to answering outstanding question about the physical nature of these
features and whether they may warrant excavation. An iron fence (figure 4) very likely
generated at least one anomaly. Yet another area (figure 3) exhibits several anomalous
features that appear to be spatially related and may represent a palimpsest of modern and
historical features, making interpretation less than straight forward. Whether portions of
this latter area warrant archaeological investigation is hinged on the questions that might
be of interest to the archaeologists. This area can also be further characterized
geophysically if it is deemed to be of potential archaeological interest. Elements of a
sprinkler system identified on site do not spatially correspond to the anomalies
highlighted in this report. In summary, recommendations for further investigation are as
follows: