American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 Section 110 Compliance Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, NHPA, Cultural Resources Investigations, Technical Report No. 12, Section 110 Survey of 2,448 Acres of Selected Parcels at Big Hill Lake, Fall River Lake, and Toronto Lake, Kansas

Summary

Section 110 Survey of 2,448 Acres of Selected Parcels at Big Hill

Lake, Fall River Lake, and Toronto Lake, Kansas

This report presents the results of the Section 110 inventory and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluations of sites on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Tulsa District (SWT), property around Big Hill Lake in LaBette County, Toronto Lake in Woodson and Greenwood Counties, and Fall River Lake in Greenwood County, Kansas (Figures 1–3). Archaeologists from Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), and the Center for Archaeological Research (CAR), Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, conducted fieldwork between April 5 and June 3, 2010, with a team composed of David Unruh (project director) and Brandon McIntosh (crew chief) (both of SRI), with field crew Chris Hord, Maria Tavasi, Dustin Thompson, Rick Rogers, and Ana Cox (all hired through CAR). SRI prepared this document for submission to the USACE-SWT, in response to Contract No. W912P9-09-D-0538, Task Order 0003, with the USACE, St. Louis District (MVS). Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470), added as an Amendment in 1980, makes explicit the responsibilities of federal agencies to identify and protect historic properties on agency lands. The 1992 amendment to this Act requires these agencies to assume responsibility for all historic properties on lands they own or manage, establish a preservation program to identify, evaluate, and nominate these sites to the NRHP, and protect these properties. Identification and evaluation of these properties are to be performed by qualified individuals following the guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 Federal Register 44720-44726). The goals of this project were threefold: (1) to perform an intensive Class III survey for historic properties at Big Hill Lake, Toronto Lake, and Fall River Lake, locating new and revisiting previously recorded historic properties and providing updates on the conditions of these properties; (2) to evaluate all recorded properties for NRHP eligibility; and (3) to prepare geographic information systems (GIS) data for all of the above, including generating site maps (1:24,000 scale and close-up) for each site using AcGIS. Project areas and selected survey parcels are presented in Figures 1–3. The Class III survey, conducted across the three reservoirs, covered a total area of 2,448 acres. SRI surveyors identified 1 new site at Big Hill Lake and recommends it not eligible for nomination to the NRHP. SRI relocated and evaluated 1 of the 3 previously recorded sites located within parcels on Big Hill Lake. This relocated site is not recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Eight new sites were identified at Fall River Lake, 2 of which are recommended as eligible for the NRHP. SRI relocated and evaluated 5 of the 8 previously recorded sites within parcels on Fall River Lake. None of these sites is recommended eligible for the NRHP. Twelve new sites were identified at Toronto Lake, 1 of which is recommended eligible for the NRHP. SRI relocated and evaluated 5 of the 12 previously recorded sites within parcels on Toronto Lake. One of these sites is recommended eligible for the NRHP. SRI surveyors mapped and recorded individual temporally diagnostic prehistoric artifacts, isolated artifacts, scatters of artifacts, and features encountered in the Class III survey within parcels at Big Hill Lake, Fall River Lake, and Toronto Lake. Shovel-testing was systematically conducted in areas with insufficient ground surface visibility. Lithic artifacts were identified by type, size, completeness, material, and presence/absence of cortex; historical-period artifacts were recorded by type, material, and diagnostic information; and features were identified by type, size, degree of modern impact, and presence of ash. No Native American ceramics were encountered during this project. Artifacts observed in shovel tests were provenienced and collected, as were temporally diagnostic prehistoric artifacts such as projectile points. The following sections detail the context, methods, and results of this project. Chapter 2 describes the environment and geomorphology of the project area. Chapter 3 presents the archaeology and history of the region and situates previous archaeological investigations in the project area within this context. Chapter 4 details the research themes and questions guiding the project and summarizes SRI’s field and analytical methods. Chapter 5 presents summaries of the previous recordings of all sites within the project area, as well as detailed descriptions of each site relocated or discovered by SRI surveyors. Chapter 6 presents an analysis of the lithic artifact data and also uses the artifact, feature, and spatial data collected during this project to address the research questions presented in Chapter 4. Finally, NRHP and management recommendations for all 32 sites recorded by SRI are presented in Chapter 7. Four appendixes are included in this report. Appendix A provides the curriculum vitae for the key personnel involved in this project, and Appendix B provides the OMB form. Appendix C presents topographic maps showing the survey areas and site locations, and Appendix D (provided on disk) contains Kansas State Historical Society Archaeological Site forms for all newly recorded sites as well as updated forms for the previously recorded sites.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• USACE (MCX-CMAC) - Section 110 Compliance Reports

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Individual & Institutional Roles

Contact(s): US Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, St. Louis District

Contributor(s): Center for Archaeological Research (CAR), Missouri State University

Landowner(s): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District

Sponsor(s): US Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, St. Louis District

Prepared By(s): Statistical Research, Inc.

Submitted To(s): US Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, St. Louis District

File Information