Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed Delek Big Sandy Hannathon Crude Oil Gathering System, Big Spring, Howard County, Texas

At the request of Olsson Associates (Olsson), and on behalf Delek Logistics Operating, L.P. (Delek), SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted an intensive cultural resources survey on a portion of the proposed approximately 11.4-mile-long Delek Big Sandy Hannathon (BSH) Crude Oil Gathering System (Project) in Big Spring, Howard County, Texas. Investigations were conducted in support of Delek’s acquisition of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit in accordance with 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 325, Appendix C and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 United States Code 306108) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). All investigations were conducted in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior, Texas Historical Commission, and the Council of Texas Archeologists. The proposed pipeline will be constructed primarily by conventional trenching methods. Horizontal directional drilling will be employed at certain sensitive resource crossings and existing infrastructure (e.g., rivers and highways). Horizontal bores will be employed to cross smaller infrastructure, such as county roads and railroads. Construction will occur within a typical right-of-way (ROW) width of 100 feet, which will consist of a 50-foot-wide permanent easement and 50-foot-wide temporary construction ROW. Construction of the proposed pipeline will employ best management practices for clearing vegetation, excavating the pipeline trench, welding and laying the pipe, backfilling the pipeline trench, re-establishing pre-construction contours, and restoring permanent vegetation. Investigations included a cultural resources background review and an intensive pedestrian survey augmented by shovel testing to systematically identify, record, delineate, and, if possible, determine the significance of any cultural resources located within the area of potential effects (APE). Rather than surveying the entire 11.4-mile-long alignment, the cultural survey targeted anticipated USACE permit review areas (PRAs) within the APE. Specifically, this approach identified areas of anticipated impacts to U.S.-regulated waterways or nearby previously identified cultural resources. Using these criteria, SWCA identified and surveyed 10 individual PRAs within the proposed pipeline alignments. During the investigations, SWCA surveyed 1.74 miles of proposed pipeline alignment at the 10 delineated PRAs (22.83 acres). As a result of the recent survey effort, SWCA archaeologists identified no cultural resources at the 10 PRAs. The survey revealed that the APE is extensively disturbed by previous oil and gas extraction activities and existing two-track and gravel roads that make up parts of the oil and gas extraction infrastructure. Additionally, at the majority of the defined PRAS, field investigations revealed only minor drainages with little to no channel development. In accordance with 33 CFR 325, Appendix C, Section 106 of the NHPA, and 36 CFR 800.4 (b)(1), SWCA has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties within the anticipated PRAs. Based on the negative results of the survey, it is the opinion of SWCA that the proposed BSH Project will have NO EFFECT on any archaeological historic properties listed on or otherwise eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at 10 PRAs associated with the BSH Project. Consequently, no further cultural resources work is recommended for the current BSH Project as currently configured

Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the J. D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Portion of the Proposed Port Arthur Pipeline Project, for Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC located in Jefferson County, Texas

AECOM conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey on June 24th, between July 28th and 30th, and on December 2nd, 2015 of the J. D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area (WMA) portion of the Port Arthur Pipeline Project (PAPL), located in Jefferson County, southeastern Texas. Fieldwork consisted of visual inspection, systematic probing, and systematic shovel testing of 5.91 miles (9.51 kilometers) and 135.3 acres (54.8 hectares) of survey area. AECOM excavated 45 shovel tests within the non-inundated portions of the project area. Because this project was located on property owned and managed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), the work was completed under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 7341. Since the majority of the identified areas requiring cultural resource survey within the Big Hill Bayou and Hillebrandt and Taylor Bayous sections are only accessible by airboat, the assessment method was augmented by systematic subsurface shovel / auger testing and/or steel probes in areas identified as displaying low to high archeological site potential. The following areas were identified as representing high archaeological potential locations: a) The northern bank of Taylor Bayou; b) The central HDD workspace proposed for the Big Hill Bayou crossing; c) Approximately 300-ft (90-m) to either side of Derring Gully; and, d) Approximately 300-ft (90-m) to either side of Big Hill Bayou. Other portions of the project area do not appear to be associated with extinct/extant bayous and/or other drainageways and was assessed a lower potential for containing intact archaeological materials. These areas were visually surveyed to identify cultural resources visible on the surface. Finally, portions of the project area have been in-filled with dredge deposits (south of Round Lake). As such, AECOM archaeologists recommend that no further systematic archaeological survey should be required for the areas identified as dredge spoil deposits. As a result of this survey effort, AECOM archaeologists and architectural historians did not identify any historic or prehistoric archeological sites, historic buildings, standing structures, objects, cemeteries, or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the boundaries of the J. D. Murphree WMA, TPWD portion of the PAPL Project. Based on the results of the Phase I cultural resources survey, AECOM recommends that a determination of No Historic Properties Affected be applied to the portion of the PAPL Project, as currently configured and defined by both the direct and indirect Area of Potential Effects (APE), located within the J. D. Murphree WMA, Jefferson County, southeastern Texas

Stratigraphy, Radiocarbon Dating and Culture History of Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia

Three seasons of fieldwork at Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia, have revealed a sequence of stratified deposits that spans the Late Pleistocene and entire Holocene. Analyses of sediments, radiocarbon dates, faunal remains, and artifacts show that the site was first occupied by people at about 10 500 B.P., when local environments were more open than today. By 9500 B.P., boreal forest had moved into the area, and human use of the site was minimal until about 7000 B.P., when a brief occupation of the site probably included a human burial. Use of the site intensified after about 4500 B.P., possibly because the cave became more accessible. The site was used both as a residential base camp and as a more temporary hunting station or lookout.   Article Summary by Jonathan C. Driver, May 2015   After we had completed our excavations in 1991 we decided that we should focus on writing up what we had excavated, and not undertake further excavations at the site. This paper was written to summarize our state of knowledge about the archaeological remains at the site, and focused on describing the stone tools, the overall stratigraphy, and the dating. The stratigraphic summary replaced earlier work based on the 1983 excavations, and we were able to refine our dating of the site as a result of more radiocarbon dates. The different cultural periods were based mainly on the work done by Martin Handly for his M.A. thesis at Trent University. The long list of authors reflects the need for a team approach to archaeological work, and include the project directors (Knut Fladmark and Jon Driver), stone tool analysis and development of the cultural sequence (Martin Handly), animal bone analysis (Randall Preston and Jon Driver), sediment analysis (Greg Sullivan and Knut Fladmark), and radiocarbon dating (Erle Nelson). The most important aspect of the site is that it preserves a very rare record of humanly made artifacts dating from the end of the last ice age (at least 10,500 BC) to very recent times. The many layers at the site allow us to separate the different cultural periods. Good preservation of bone allowed us to submit radiocarbon dates that provide approximate ages for the various cultures that used the site. The artifacts that exhibit the most change through time are projectile points – the sharp stone tips for spears, darts and arrows. In much of western Canada it is difficult to date archaeological sites, because many of them are found in shallow soils where radiocarbon dating is difficult for two reasons. First, animal bone is often not preserved due to the acidic nature of the soils. Second, although charcoal is often found, it cannot be reliably associated with human activity, because natural forest fires also produce charcoal. As a result, archaeologists look at the style of the projectile points to assign approximate ages. Tse’K’wa provides an opportunity to link artifacts of different styles to radiocarbon dates in a site with many distinct layers. So Tse’K’wa is a foundation for understanding the sequence of different cultures in the region. The article also discusses the possible early presence of microblade technology. Microblades are the most efficient way of producing a cutting edge when the base technology is chipped stone. A small piece of high-quality raw material (known as the core) is shaped in such a way that numerous parallel-sided slivers of stone can be removed. These “microblades” can then be hafted in wood or antler to form knives or arrow barbs. The concept is rather like our utility knives that have replaceable blades. This technology allows people to carry small quantities of high quality stone with them, ensuring that they always have a sharp blade available. Not all archaeologists agree that the early microblade core from Tse’K’wa is part of this technology, because it doesn’t conform to the classic methods of core manufacture. However, we argue that evidence for the removal of microblades is very obvious, and the lack of classic core preparation is because of the tabular nature of the raw material. The paper also introduces some information about animal bones, including the raven burials, evidence for environmental change, and the presence of collared lemming. These topics were subsequently explored in more detail in other papers