ML21076A505
| ML21076A505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 02/26/2021 |
| From: | Environmental Properties Management, Enercon Services, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co, Veolia Nuclear Solutions Federal Services |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, NRC Region 4 |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21076A479 | List:
|
| References | |
| Download: ML21076A505 (50) | |
Text
BURNS ~ £DONNELL August 6, 2018 Catherine Wood Section 106 Coordinator Oklahoma Historic Preservation Office 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Re: Request for SHPO Consultation CERT Groundwater Remediation Project Logan County, Oklahoma Cimarron Environmental Response Trust
Dear Ms. Wood:
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT) is proposing to construct a Groundwater Remediation Project (Project) in Logan County, Oklahoma (Attachment 1: Figure A-1). The proposed Project is located on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Crescent and Navina topographic quadrangle maps at Township 16 N, Range 4 W, Section 12. The Project requires a Pre-Construction Notification to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Tulsa District under a Nationwide Permit 12, which requires compliance with the terms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A).
CERT is proposing the installation of approximately 17,746 feet (5,409 meters [m]) of two to eight-inch (5 to 20 centimeter [cm]) utility and groundwater conveyance lines, 4,662 feet (1,421 m) of four to six-inch ( 10 to 15 cm) discharge lines, and two associated permanent structures relating to groundwater treatment (Attachment 1: Figure A-2). The proposed depth of impacts are 3 feet (0.9 m) associated with water conveyance systems, approximately 18 to 36 inches (0.5 to 0.9 m) associated with water discharge piping installation, and a maximum of 40 feet associated with extraction and injection trenches. The proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE) is approximately 503 acres and is located on private property.
On behalf of CERT, a Burns & McDonnell archeologist performed a background review of the APE and a 1-mile buffer at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS) in Norman, Oklahoma and online using the architectural Oklahoma Landmark Inventory (OLI) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) NPGallery Database, and historic-age United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps.
Previously Records Archeological Sites and Surveys The records review revealed four previously recorded cultural resources surveys within a 1-mile radius of the Project, none of which intersect with the APE (Table 1; Attachment A: Figure A-3).
100 Energy Way\ Suite 1900 \ Fort Worth, TX 76102 o 817-377-0361 \ F 817-377-0394 \ burnsmcd.com
BURNS ~ S:DONNELL Catherine Wood Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office August 6, 2018 Page2 Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Surveys within One Mile of the Project Intersects Date Surveyed by Agency APE I 0/14/1999 Duncan NRCS-FEMA No 12/16/1997 NSFW NSFW No 4/30/2010 O'Shea ODOT No 7/2/2004 Graystone FCC No The review also identified one previously recorded archeological site within the I-mile buffer (Table 2; Attachment A: Figure A-3). Neither is within the APE.
Table 2: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within One Mile of the Project NRHP Eligibility Intersects Trinomial Site Type Recommendation APE 34LG91 Historic Farmstead Not Eligible No No additional previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the APE or I-mile buffer in an examination of the OLI and the NRHP NPGallery Database.
A review of historic-age maps covering the APE identified that two buildings once stood within the APE. The buildings are depicted on the USGS Kingfisher, OK, topographic quadrangle map dating to 1892, revised 1922 (Attachment A: Figure A-4). These structures are missing on subsequent maps dating from 1954, 1957, and 1963 (USGS 2018). Additionally, the 1970 USGS Crescent, OK, Topographic Quadrangle map depicts the current buildings and 'Sewage Disposal Ponds' within the APE. These detention ponds are no longer extant as of 1991 aerial photographs (NETR 2018).
The proposed Project location is located on the south bank of the Cimarron River with Holocene-age alluvium within the floodplain and Permian-age Garber Sandstone composing the river bluff (Beran et al. 2003). Soils are mapped as both the Yahola-Gracemore-Goodnight-Gaddy (s6236) and the Vanoss-Teller-Norge-Konawa (s6276), respectively (NRCS 2018). The Yahola-Gracemore-Goodnight-Gaddy Complex is composed mainly of sandy or loamy soils derived predominately from Holocene-age alluvium. The Vanoss-Teller-Norge-Konawa Complex is also
BURNS ~ £DONNELL Catherine Wood Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office August 6, 2018 Page 3 composed of sandy and loamy soils derived predominately from Pleistocene-age alluvium (NRCS 2018).
Given the proximity to a major waterway, the Cimarron River, and the large amounts of alluvial deposits, the location does appear to have a high probability for buried cultural material.
Although no previously recorded archeological sites are within the APE, the area does not appear to have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Due to the proximity of the Cimarron River and deep, alluvial soils within the floodplain, the APE has potential for containing previously unrecorded cultural resources. Burns & McDonnell, on behalf of CERT, respectfully requests guidance on how to proceed with fulfilling our obligations under Section 106 of NHPA.
We greatly appreciate your assistance and timely response. If you have any questions, please contact me at dprodriguez@bumsmcd.com or (81 7) 570-0009.
Sincerely, Daniel Rodriguez, MA, RP A Staff Cultural Resources Specialist : Figure A-1: Project location : Figure A-2: Project Design : Figure A-3: Background Review Results : Figure A-4: Project with 1892 (revised 1922) USGS map
BURNS ~ !:DONNELL Catherine Wood Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office August 6, 2018 Page4 REFERENCES Heran, W. D., Green, G. and Stoeser, D. B.
2003 A Digital Geologic Map Database of Oklahoma: US G.S. Open File Report 03-247.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2018 NRCS Web Soil Survey. Retrieved July 16, 2018, from http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) 2018 Historic Aerials Viewer. Retrieved July 16, 2018, from https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2018 Texas Geology Web Map Viewer. Retrieved July 16, 2018, from /
/Txpub. usgs.gov, txpub.usgs.gov/dss/texasgeology/
ATTACHMENT 1 - FIGURE 1, PROJECT LOCATION I
I I
I<
I Attachment 1: Figure A-1 Project Location
~ BURNS Groundwater Remediation Project
~ M~DONNELL"' Cimarron Environmental 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Response Trust Feet Logan County, Oklahoma
ATTACHMENT 2 - FIGURE 2, PROJECT DESIGN Path: Z :\Clients\ENS\CERn104407_CERT-DECOM2018\Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\Attachment2_ProjectD esign .mxd gacox 7/30/2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
ice Laver Credits: L.JSOA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photoqraphy Field Office
- Outfall c::::J Structure Attachment 2: Figure A-2 Project Design c::===: Extraction Trench c::::J Study Area Groundwater Remediation Project
~ BURNS
~ Injection Trench ~ M~DONNELL-800 400 0 800 Cimarron Environmental
- Discharge Line Response Trust
- Utility and Water Line Feet Logan County, Oklahoma
ATTACHMENT 3 - FIGURE 3, BACKGROUND REVIEW RESULTS
ATTACHMENT 4 -FIGURE 4, PROJECT WITH 1892 (REVISED 1922) USGS MAP 8<ll CJ)
-0 X
E ci a.
~u
~
i:
'<ti c<lJ E
{i
<ll
~
fJ 0
0
~
~
.SI u::<ll
~ <..i c:::. z
<ll -
~z
(/) <(
0 a.
9~~ (.)
'6 (!)
.2 z C:!]ci'.
co
-r-w w
~ £
~ (!)
0 Z u w LJ.J ..J 0 ..J
~ ~
u,gz LJ.J r-- (..)
~ !
~~
ffi ~
CJ r_ _
Study Area ~ Attachment 4: Figure A-4 Kingfisher, OK 1892 (rev. 1922)
~ i~ 1__ ~ 1-mile Records Review Buffer NORTH ~~BURNS 1:12ti000 Quadrangle
§ @5 MCDON EL' , Groundwater Remediation Project
~
41,..~
.~ :c ~
c1- ~ 0 2000 , 4,000 - N a: Cimarron Environmental g 52j
~ g:.~ Response Trust
~ ~~ Feet Logan County, Oklahoma a.. Ucnli!!
.C::!'"'r'!-,r-r,::,-
- ".!!!l=!!!".C::R!!!!"I!'
- "!!!"r.i!'"'m-:::1-rrn-n~l='!!!"'n-11'!""irn_n_m_,::,~nt~:::il""!!R!""A-"-n-n-nc:-A""!!T!!'"'
n -,c:,'!"'t
- "!!'R-, c:, "!"'R."'!"M!""r-!!!!"nn_n_n~Al'!"'IC!!!"'n-,.,'!"'in-AA-r'!""in-r,'"!!lr*nm_n_o,_n_""'!"'
ir-n- ln - , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! ' " ' , " ' - ,
, -,o"'!",.j,""!!7!"!"nll!'lnll!'l/'J-n1t
BURNS ~ MSDONNELL.
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Property, Logan County, Oklahoma Cimarron Environmental Response Trust CERT Cultural Resources Survey T16N R4W Sections 1, 2, 11, 12 (Crescent 1970)
Project No. 120830 September 2020
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Property, Logan County, Oklahoma prepared for Cimarron Environmental Response Trust CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cimarron City, Logan County, Oklahoma Project No. 120830 September 2020 prepared by Daniel Rodriguez Brandy Harris Andrew Gottsfield Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Fort Worth, Texas
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Abstract ABSTRACT Bums & McDonnell cultural resources specialists performed a Phase I cultural resources survey of the approximately 530-acre Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT) property (Property) in Logan County, Oklahoma. CERT proposes to construct groundwater remediation and treatment systems (Project) across the property to capture and treat contaminated groundwater. The Project is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Lead Agency) and requires a Pre-Construction Notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District under a Nationwide Permit 12.
Compliance with the terms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required.
The survey included shovel testing within the approximate 530-acre Property, which includes uplands and the Cimarron River valley floodplain. The survey also included deep mechanical testing of alluvial and colluvial deposits in the Cimarron River floodplain. While the lead agency has not made an official determination regarding the Area of Potential Effect (APE), the entire Property is considered the proposed APE for the purposes of this report. No archeological sites or artifacts were recorded. No further archeological work is recommended.
In the APE, archeologists recorded three buildings (Resources O1-03), a structure associated with Resource O1 (Resource O1a) and three diesel water pumps (Resources 04-06) historically associated with the former Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation's Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Plant (operational from 1966 to 1975). One historic metal corral was recorded in the floodplain which likely pre-dates Kerr-McGee ownership of the property (Resource 07). Based on the Architectural Historian's assessment of these resources, Resource 07 does not have any known historical associations important to the local or national history and is not distinctive in form or design. Furthermore, it is not part of an archeological site.
Therefore, it is not recommended as eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listing.
Resources 01-06 maintain historic associations with the Kerr-McGee Plant. This plant was important in the nuclear history of the United States and Resources 01-06 are likely eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion A. Additionally, Resource O1 (MOFF Building) represents a distinctive example of an industrial property type and appears eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion C. Despite their potential NRHP eligibility, the current Project will not impact the resources directly, and they all lack integrity of setting due to loss of associated building stock and previous remediation activities. Furthermore, the proposed improvements are not anticipated to impact any character-defining features of the resources regardless of their NRHP eligibility status. No further consideration of impacts to the resources under Section 106 is recommended in association with the current Project.
CERT Abstract-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................... 1-1
- 1. 1 Description of the Area of Potential Effects ........................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project History and Personnel.. ............................................................................ 1-2 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background Review Methods .............................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Archeological Survey Methods ............................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Historic-age Non-archeological Resource Survey Methods ................................ 2-3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Physiographic Province, Geology, Geomorphic Setting, and Soils ..................... 3-1 3.2 Flora ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Fauna .................................................................................................................... 3-3 4.0 CULTURAL HISTORY OVERVIEW .................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Paleoindian Period ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Archaic Period ..................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Early Ceramic/Plains Woodland Period .............................................................. 4-3 4.4 Middle Ceramic/ Southern Plains Village Period ............................................... 4-3 4.5 Late Ceramic/ Protohistoric Period ..................................................................... 4-4 4.6 Historic Period ..................................................................................................... 4-4 5.0 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND REVIEW ......................................................... 5-1 5 .1 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites and Surveys ....................................... 5-1 6.0 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY ................................ 6-1 6.1 Historic-age Buildings and Structures ................................................................. 6-3 6.1.1 Kerr-McGee Facility Buildings ............................................................ 6-3 6.1.2 Resource 01 (MOFF Building) ............................................................. 6-3 6.1.3 Resource 02 (Warehouse #4) ................................................................ 6-4 6.1.4 Resource 03 (Emergency Response Building) ..................................... 6-4 6.1.5 Resources 04 through 06 ....................................................................... 6-5 6.1.6 Resource 07 ........................................................................................... 6-5 6.2 NRHP Eligibility and Effect ................................................................................ 6-5
7.0 CONCLUSION
S AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 7-1
8.0 REFERENCES
CITED ...................................................................................... 8-1 CERT TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Table of Contents APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX B - SHOVEL TEST AND TRENCH TABLES APPENDIX C - PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX D - HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION FORMS CERT TOC-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Page No.
Table 3-1: Soils within the CERT APE ................................................................................... 3-2 Table 5-1: Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within 1- Mile Study Area ........................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within 1- Mile Study Area ................... 5-1 CERT TOC-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey List of Abbreviations LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name APE Proposed Area of Potential Effect, Same as Property Burns & McDonnell Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
cm centimeter( s) cmbs centimeters below surface CERT Cimarron Environmental Response Trust GIS Geographic Information System OPS Global Positioning System KMNC Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation m meter(s)
MOFF Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication NetrOnline Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OAS Oklahoma Archeological Survey Project Proposed groundwater remediation and treatment systems Property Cimarron Environmental Response Trust property SNM Special Nuclear Material SOI Secretary of the Interior Study Area 1-mile buffer around the APE CERT Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District USGS U.S. Geological Survey CERT ii Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT) property (Property) in Logan County, Oklahoma (Appendix A: Figure A-1).
CERT proposes to construct groundwater remediation and treatment systems (Project) across the property to capture and treat contaminated groundwater. The Project is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the lead agency, and requires a Pre-Construction Notification to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District (USACE) under a Nationwide Permit 12. Compliance with the terms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is required. Bums & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) conducted the cultural resources survey in compliance with Section 106 of the NHP A.
1.1 Description of the Area of Potential Effects The Property is an approximately 530-acre parcel located on the south side of the Cimarron River in Township 16N, Range 4W in portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 (USGS 1970). It consists of234 acres of floodplain along the Cimarron River and 296 acres of uplands. Portions of the upland area of the Property have been disturbed over the last 40 years (Appendix A: Figure A-2). The proposed remediation design is currently under review by the lead agency. While the lead agency has not made a formal determination regarding the Area of Potential Effects (APE), the proposed APE is the entire approximately 530-acre property (Appendix A: Figure A-2).
Approximately 25 acres of the Property is currently owned by Cimarron Holdings, LLC. Approximately 24 acres of property containing the MOFF Building and Warehouse #4 were sold to Cimarron Holdings LLC in 2015, and approximately one acre of property containing the Emergency Response Building was sold to Cimarron Holdings LLC in 2018. The Purchase & Sale Agreements executed prior to the sale of the properties state that the Trust would retain responsibility for any remediation that would be needed to achieve State remediation criteria, and that the Trust would be granted access to the properties as needed to install infrastructure, run utilities, etc. Because the Decommissioning Plan includes provisions for groundwater remediation on these properties, the decision was made to include that property in the APE.
The current design includes a maximum anticipated depth of impact of approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters
[m]) below ground surface (associated with groundwater extraction and injection trenches). The proposed improvements are not anticipated to impact any character-defining features of above-ground resources.
As such, the visual or nonphysical APE is proposed to be the same as the direct or physical APE.
CERT 1-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Introduction 1.2 Project History and Personnel On July 23, 2018, Daniel Rodriguez conducted a records search for the Project at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS). The field survey was conducted on between May 5 and May 28, 2020 by Daniel Rodriguez M.A., Andrew Gottsfield, PhD., and Robert Brush, B.A. Mr. Rodriguez lead the pedestrian survey and served as the Secretary of the Interior (SOI)-qualified Principal Investigator for the archeological investigations. Mr. Gottsfield lead the geoarcheological deep testing. Brandy Harris, M.A.,
served as the Architectural Historian and reviewed the photographs of the historic-age non-archeological resources in the APE. Ken Gouvion and Evan Emmerich produced the report figures and coordinated Geographic Information System (GIS) data collected during the survey effort.
CERT 1-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Research Design and Methods 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The overall objective of the background review and the cultural resources survey was to locate and assess historic-age (50 years of age or older) properties or archeological sites within the Property that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). All work was conducted to professional standards and guidelines in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44 716-44 742). The following sections provide information regarding the sources consulted during the background review, which took place before the start of fieldwork, as well as the methods used during the cultural resources survey.
2.1 Background Review Methods Prior to the field investigations, Bums & McDonnell reviewed archeological and historical literature relevant to the Property within a I-mile buffer around the APE (hereafter referred to as Study Area),
including examination of the online architectural Oklahoma Landmark Inventory (OLI), NRHP records, and the archeological site records maintained at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS) (Appendix A: Figure A-3). The review also provided information via previous reports and secondary sources for the cultural history and environmental overview of the Study Area and identified previous archeological investigations conducted in the Study Area. Other sources consulted include, online Oklahoma Geologic Map Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Web Soil Survey supplied by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), historic-age maps provided by the USGS Historic Topographic Map Explorer, and geomorphic studies relevant to this portion of the Cimarron River valley ( e.g. ENSR Corporation [ENSR] 2006; Lepper and Scott 2005; Scott 1999). Historic-period aerials were reviewed using the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NetrOnline 2020) online database (historicaerials.com); however, these aerials are copyright-protected materials, and were thus not included as exhibits in this report. The historicaerials.com database includes aerial imagery from 1981, 1991, 1995, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 (NetrOnline 2020).
2.2 Archeological Survey Methods A pedestrian survey was conducted across the approximate 530-acre APE (Appendix A: Figure A-2).
Shovel tests were excavated in settings that have potential for buried cultural materials. Shovel testing avoided areas of heavy ground disturbance and slopes greater than 20 percent. Given the shallow soils and heavily disturbed nature of the uplands and bluffs, shovel tests were staggered approximately every 118 meters (m) (387 feet [ft]), approximately one test every 1.5 acres. The intervals were reduced, as practical, in areas of high potential for buried cultural material. In the deeper Holocene alluvium of the Cimarron River floodplain, shovel tests were staggered approximately every 100 m (328 ft), or one per CERT 2-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Research Design and Methods acre. Additional shovel tests were excavated at 10 m (33 ft) intervals to determine the boundaries of any archeological sites identified within the Property. All shovel tests measured approximately 30 x 30 centimeters (cm), approximately one foot diameter, and were excavated in controlled 10-cm (4-inch) levels to a depth of 1 m (3.3 ft) or until pre-Holocene soils were encountered. Soil matrices were screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth unless the matrix was dominated by clay. Clay matrices were broken down by hand and visually inspected for cultural remains. Shovel test locations were recorded on Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and backfilled upon completion. Had cultural materials been recovered, those materials would have been recorded and photographed in the field but not collected.
Standing historic resources were photographed and documented by archeologists onsite and evaluated by a Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified Architectural Historian.
In addition to the pedestrian survey, mechanical deep testing was conducted in areas of the floodplain and floodplain margins of the Cimarron River. In total, 18 trenches (approximately one trench per 6 acres) were mechanically excavated within the portions of the floodplain that was not in the Cimarron River channel historically (Appendix A: Figure A-4). The location of the channel historically was determined based on what appears to be a filled channel scar along the northern portion of the floodplain. This area has sand at the surface and stark vegetative differences from the southern portions of the floodplain. In addition, the 1892 topographic map apparently shows the Cimarron River channel located south of its current position in the valley and into the APE (Attachment A: Figure A-5; USGS 1892). Due to the apparent recent age of that portion of the floodplain sediment, no deep trenching was conducted.
Bum & McDonnell subcontracted Remediation Services, Inc. (RSI) for mechanical excavation services.
The excavator was fitted with an approximately 3-foot-wide toothless bucket. Trenches were excavated to approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) long and approximately 1 m (3 ft) wide. Mechanized excavations proceeded in a slow, controlled manner from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 1.2 m (4 ft). At this depth, the Burns & McDonnell geoarcheologist closely examined the trench walls for the presence of archeological deposits and scraped a vertical section clean to describe the soil-stratigraphy. Trench locations were mapped using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. After examination, each trench was slowly excavated further in depth until loose, coarse-grained sand point bar sediments were encountered.
Only a meter, approximately three feet, or less of trench excavation could be conducted into these course-grain sands before the sidewalls collapsed. At this point of refusal due to sidewall collapse, the depth of the trenches was recorded and the stratigraphic profile was completed. The trench spoil pile was visually inspected for artifacts and other evidence of archeological deposits. A sample of sediment would have been screened if buried soils or archeological artifacts or charcoal were encountered. All trenches were CERT 2-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Research Design and Methods photographed upon completion and then backfilled. All trenching operations conformed to current Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and guidelines.
2.3 Historic-age Non-archeological Resource Survey Methods The historic-age non-archeological resource reconnaissance survey was conducted between May 5 and May 28, 2020. During the field effort, archeologists sought to document all buildings, structures, objects, districts, etc. constructed prior to 1975 ( 45 years of age or older) within the APE. A 45-year cutoff date was selected to account for potential delays in Project letting. All historic-age built resources within the APE were photo-documented and their locations recorded for further assessment by the Project's Secretary of the Interior (SOI)-qualified Architectural Historian.
Preliminary NRHP eligibility assessments were based on the SOI standards for identification and evaluation of historic resources, including the 50-year-age criterion and assessment of resources' integrity and significance with regard to design or association with recognized historic contexts or significant individuals. This method of survey naturally favored resources that maintain significance for their architectural qualities; however, the Architectural Historian also identified resources that may merit NRHP consideration for their associations with historic development patterns in the Project vicinity.
CERT 2-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Environmental Setting 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This chapter is an overview of the environmental setting in the APE. Included is discussion of natural resources available to prehistoric and historic-era human populations. At present, most of the Property is in grass-covered rangeland, interspersed with wooded slopes and other woody vegetation. Regionally, the climate is classified as humid subtropical with warm summers. The Project proximity to the 100th Meridian means that the region is drought-prone and could be considered semi-arid during the extended periods of drought that have historically plagued Oklahoma.
3.1 Physiographic Province, Geology, Geomorphic Setting, and Soils The APE is within the Central Redbed Plains geomorphic province (Curtis et al. 2008). The Redbed Plains Province is characterized by gently rolling hills and broad, flat, upland plains. Surface sediments comprise Permian red shales and sandstones, with outcrops of gypsum. Permian bedrock exposures along the escarpment that borders the Cimarron River valley in the APE are not chert-bearing and are dominated by sandstones of the Garber-Wellington Formation (Curtis et al. 2008; ENSR 2006).
The northern part of the APE includes a section of the Cimarron River valley. In Kingfisher County, located approximately five miles west of the APE, eight distinct Quaternary terraces have been identified in this valley (Scott 1999; Lepper and Scott 2005). However, the APE includes the sediment assemblage of the most recent and lowest of the terraces, the Cimarron River floodplain: Qt-0. The higher terraces are located on the north side of the Cimarron River channel west of the APE and covered with sand and loess dune deposits of varying ages.
Chronological data pertaining to terrace fills in this portion of the Cimarron River valley are sparse.
However, it appears the Qt-1 began aggrading in the late Pleistocene and continued through the late Holocene, attaining surface stability by approximately 1,250 years ago (Lepper and Scott 2005).
Therefore, the QT-0 likely began aggrading after or around that time. This suggests the river meandered to the edge of the southern escarpment at some point during the late Holocene and has migrated north to its current position. The timing of that migration has not been determined but the sediments in the floodplain are assumed to be younger than 1,250 years.
Alluvial sediments beneath the Qt-0 consist predominantly of sand with minor amount of clay and silt (ENSR 2006). The clay and silt range from Oto 6 feet thick and occur mostly near the ground surface.
The alluvium is underlain by sandstone near the upland escarpment and by mudstone and sandstone closer to the Cimarron River. The alluvial gravel and sand deposits average about 20 feet thick (Adams and Bergman 1995).
CERT 3-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Environmental Setting In addition to the floodplain deposits in the river valley, there appear to be small localized alluvial fans and colluvial apron deposits along the base of the upland escarpment at the floodplain transition area (or toe slope). The fans occur at the mouths of streams or gullies draining the uplands and are almost imperceptible in the field. It appears they are blanketed with overbank alluvium from Cimarron River flood events. The fan at the eastern portion of the Property contains an extensive buried clay unit that is likely an indication of oxbow lake or slackwater deposits. The alluvial fan/ colluvial aprons accumulated on point bar sediments seen across the entire floodplain and it appears to interfinger with recent overbank, slackwater, and point bar sediments (ENSR 2006: Figures 2-5 and 2-9).
The Property contains 21 soil types with Ironmound-Coyle complex (approximately 136 acres), Yahola series (approximately 74 acres), and Darnell-Rock outcrop complex (approximately 51 acres) comprising the predominate soil groups (Table 3-1). The Ironmound-Coyle complex is composed oflronmound loam and Coy le loam series formed in material weathered from Permian-age sandstone. The Ironmound-Coy le complex is located on crests and side slopes of low hills in the Central Redbed Plains (NRCS 2020).
Yahola fine sandy loam and loam is formed in Permian- and Pleistocene-age calcareous loamy alluvium.
The Y ahola series is located on nearly level floodplains of major streams in the Central Redbed Plains (NRCS 2020). The Darnell-Rock outcrop complex is composed of Darnell fine sandy loam and exposed sandstone outcrops. The Darnell series is formed in material weathered from Permian-age sandstone and located on summits and shoulders of low hills (NRCS 2020).
Table 3-1: Soils within the CERT APE Soil Area Key Description (Acres)
IrCE Ironmound-Coyle complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 135.63 YaaA Yahola loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 74.08 DaRG Darnell-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 45 percent slopes 50.55 YahA Yahola fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 45.14 CoIC2 Coyle-Ironmound complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 44.03 w Water 39.70 GadA Gaddy loamy fine sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 31.00 URB Urban land 21.40 LerA Lebron clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 20.47 GooE Goodnight fine sand, 1 to 15 percent slopes 13.62 GaGA Gaddy-Gracemore complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded 13.07 GraC Grainola silty clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 10.34 RnnC2 Renthin silty clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 8.44 CERT 3-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Environmental Setting Soil Area Key Description (Acres)
ZanC Zaneis loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 6.34 GohE Goodnight loamy fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes 3.52 Coyle-Ashport frequently flooded-Ironmound complex, 1 to 8 percent 3.52 CAID slopes EasA Easpur loam, 0 to I percent slopes, occasionally flooded 3.51 PIT Pits 2.33 ZanB Zaneis loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.34 ZanC2 Zaneis loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded 0.81 CoyB Coyle loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.04 Source: NRCS 2020 3.2 Flora The Property is within the tallgrass prairie, which comprises large swaths of mixed grasses (Hoagland 2008). Prior to large-scale agricultural practices, these prairie grasses were in abundance with select areas of oak timber. The main grasses include little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Some of the trees include several species of oak (Quercus), cottonwoods (Populus), ash (Fraxinus), red cedar (Thuja), elm (Ulmus), and sycamore (platanus occidentalis). In the eastern part of Oklahoma, this prairie intergrades with oak-hickory forests, and in the western part of the State, it transitions into mixed grass plains. Due to fire suppression, tallgrass prairie is easily replaced by forest and woodland vegetation subsequent to land abandonment.
3.3 Fauna A variety of terrestrial species would have been present in and around the Property from prehistoric through early historic times. Many of these species were important food resources for prehistoric and historic-era Native Americans and for early European travelers and Euroamerican settlers in the region.
Some of the mammals native to the area include bison (Bison bison), elk/wapiti (Cervus canadensis),
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canus latrans),
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), raccoon Pprocyon lotor), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Bison and elk no longer occur in this region (Caire et al.
1989). Bird species used by people would have included bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), the greater (Tympanuchus cupido) and lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), and the turkey CERT 3-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Environmental Setting (Meleagris gallopavo); and fish species would have included a variety of bass (Micropterus), crappie (Pomoxis), and catfish (Siluriformes) (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 2016).
CERT 3-4 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview 4.0 CULTURAL HISTORY OVERVIEW This section provides a summary discussion of the cultural history of the region surrounding the Survey Area. Archeologists generally divide the prehistoric cultural sequence of central Oklahoma into two pre-ceramic periods (Paleoindian and Archaic) and three ceramic periods, as defined by changes in technology, settlement, and subsistence. The written record, essentially coeval with the Euroamerican presence in the area, marks the historic period. Overall, the cultural chronology is divided into six parts:
- Paleoindian Period
- Archaic Period
- Early Ceramic/Plains Woodland Period
- Middle Ceramic/Southern Plains Village Period
- Late Ceramic/Contact Period
- Historic Period 4.1 Paleoindian Period The Paleoindian Period marks the earliest pre-ceramic human occupation in the Americas. Two sites in the region, Cooperton in Kiowa County and Burnham in Woods County, have very early radiocarbon dates ranging from 32,000 to 18,000 years ago. The dates derive from organic materials that were found in association with stone tools (Anderson 1975; Wyckoff et al. 2003). Because the archeological record is so sparse for very early sites, not much can be said about broad cultural patterns or behaviors from this time.
Around 11,000 to 12,000 years ago, the more materially distinct Clovis cultural adaptation appeared in North America. Clovis sites are typically identified by a fluted-point lithic technology sometimes found in association with the remains of Pleistocene megafauna. Following Clovis, archeologists recognize the Folsom cultural adaptation defined largely by a different fluted point technology than Clovis or other Paleoindians. Fluted Folsom points are more common in the western United States than in the eastern parts. The Cooper site along the Beaver River in northwest Oklahoma is an excellent example of a Folsom bison kill site. Bones and stone tools from three late summer or early fall kill events llave provided a wealth of information about Folsom hunting rituals, lithic technology, and butchering practices (Bement 1999). By the end of the Paleoindian Period, regional technological variation among groups of mobile hunters increased. The groups are typically identified and classified by different spear point forms (Hofman 1989; Hofman and Graham 1998; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983).
CERT 4-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview While Paleoindian cultures are often characterized as small groups with high residential mobility, current research suggests that they may have established base camps from which small groups fanned out over the landscape to hunt and gather local resources. This model still assumes a generally nomadic lifestyle, but envisions a somewhat more sedentary existence than had been postulated previously (Brooks 2009).
4.2 Archaic Period The start of the Archaic Period roughly coincides with the beginning of the Hypsithermal climatic episode (Hofman 1989; Kay 1998). That period was one of warmer and drier climate, which led to an expansion of grasslands into previously forested areas and the disappearance of much wetland vegetation (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Moist forests persisted in bottomlands near rivers and streams, which attracted game animals to valleys. The concentration of faunal resources in bottom land and forested areas, combined with prehistoric peoples' increased reliance on woodland-associated plant foods (e.g., nuts, berries), led to close-range group mobility patterns focused in and near stream valleys.
The Archaic Period is divided into three sub-periods: Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic.
Western Oklahoma was arid and desert-like during the Early and Middle Archaic. Few sites dating to the Early and Middle Archaic have been found in western Oklahoma. Due to the arid conditions, people may have settled eastward where moist bottomlands were more extensive (OAS 2016a).
Population increased during the Late Archaic Period. Most archeologists attribute this population boom to the end of the Hypsithermal and a return to somewhat cooler, moister climatic conditions (McGrath et al.
1988; O'Brien 1996). Late Archaic technology is marked by increased variety in the contents of toolkits.
Groundstone tools that became common during this period include three-quarter grooved axes, bannerstones, plummets, hammerstones, pestles, and manos. The increased number of pestles and manos is thought to reflect the increased processing of wild seeds and nuts. Other lithic tools of the Late Archaic include notched dart points, triangular bifaces, grinding basins, double-bitted axes, scrapers, perforators, drills, and knives (Blackmar and Hofman 2006; Sabo and Early 1990).
Late Archaic sites generally functioned as habitations or specialized limited activity areas associated with the procurement and processing oflocally available resources (Latham 2007; O'Brien and Wood 1998).
Site 34BL46 is a nearby Late Archaic and early Plains Village site in Blaine County, northwest of the Project (OAS 2016b ). The Certain site in southwest Oklahoma is a multi-event bison kill site where hunters drove the animals into a dead-end canyon, trapping them and throwing spears at them. Kill events took place in the late summer or early fall (OAS 2016c).
CERT 4-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview 4.3 Early Ceramic/Plains Woodland Period The Early Ceramic/Plains Woodland Period in the Plains has been defined by the appearance of pottery, horticulture and related food storage features, and interment in mounds. Plains Woodland cultures in eastern Oklahoma were similar to other Woodland cultures found in the Midwest. To some degree, Plains Woodland adaptions perpetuated Late Archaic lifeways, overlain by a cultural veneer related to the new horticultural economy (Bozell 2006; Vehik 1984). Few Plains Woodland sites have been excavated or even partially excavated in western Oklahoma, where the period is poorly understood (Drass 1984, 1997).
The Roulston-Rogers site in Seminole County in central Oklahoma was found to contain evidence of older Late Archaic and younger Early Ceramic adaptations. The site demonstrated that Early Ceramic peoples hunted with bows and arrows and used pottery to store and cook food. The Frisco Formation in Pontotoc County, southeast of the site, was the main source of chert used at the Roulston-Rogers site (OAS 2016d).
4.4 Middle Ceramic I Southern Plains Village Period The Middle Ceramic/ Southern Plains Village Period is represented in central Oklahoma, where sites are primarily camps (Drass 1997; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Village sites have been identified along the Washita and Canadian river systems and to the west along the Cimarron and North Canadian River systems. This cultural period is characterized by an intensification of horticultural practices, increased population and settlement size, and seasonal bison hunting (Brooks et al. 1985).
The Middle Ceramic/ Southern Plains Village Period is segmented into Phases based on site assemblages and associated features. The Custer Phase in western Oklahoma and Paoli Phase in central Oklahoma are the earliest, while the Turkey Creek Phase in the west and the Washita River Phase in central Oklahoma occur later during this period (Drass 1997). Increased sedentism and horticulture are indicated by the presence of small hamlets, with pit storage to preserve supplies for lean times. However, bison hunting was still important, supplementing the agricultural lifeway, along with exploitation of a complete range of other local wild animal and plant food resources. Houses were generally rectangular in outline, with central hearths. Sand-, grit-, and shale-tempered pottery was widely used for everyday cooking and food storage, but also for serving during ritual activities. Dart points, from throwing spears, are more common at early Middle Ceramic sites, while side-notched and corner-notched arrow points are more common at later sites (Drass 1997).
Middle Ceramic complexes in Oklahoma exhibit the cultural variety that developed as groups established relatively permanent settlements (Drass 1998; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Many Washita River sites in CERT 4-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview central Oklahoma were abandoned around A.O. 1500, and some archeologists believe the abandonment is evidence of a large exodus to south-central Kansas at that time (Drass 2001 ).
4.5 Late Ceramic / Protohistoric Period The Late Ceramic Period began around A.O. 1450 and phased into the Protohistoric Period, which ended in the mid-l 700s (Drass 1999). The period began when most of the Middle Ceramic population had left the area. Large-scale habitation sites were abandoned across the region. During this time, European trade goods first appeared and eventually became regular components ofNative technology. Native Americans quickly adopted European-introduced horses into their lifeways. Agriculture remained important for subsistence, but Plains tribes used the mobility horses provided to focus on hunting. Several protohistoric and historic-era Native American groups lived in or moved from Arkansas and Missouri into eastern Oklahoma. These groups included the Wichita, Mento, Osage, Quapaw, and Cherokee. Tribes who moved from the northwestern Plains into the southwestern Plains included the Cheyenne, Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache (Garrett Pool 2009; Kavanagh 2009; Kracht 2009; Moore 2009).
The period witnessed occasional Spanish military expeditions in addition to the arrival of Euroamerican fur trappers and traders. The Protohistoric Period in western Oklahoma includes early written accounts of contact between Native groups and Europeans. The Wichita are mentioned regularly in these accounts.
However, contact between the Wichita and other Native groups was limited and sporadic, and this has created challenges for archeologists trying to link archeological manifestations with known tribes (Drass and Baugh 1997).
Beginning around A.O. 1740, the French became more active in the region, trading along the Canadian and Arkansas rivers. Initially, their trade centers were focused on Wichita territory in north-central Oklahoma (Hackett 1941; Wedel 1981 ). As the French population increased in the area, their trading efforts spread into the interior, away from the major rivers (Vehik and Vehik 1997).
4.6 Historic Period In 1803, the U.S. acquired the land that became the state of Oklahoma from France in the Louisiana Purchase. Soon after, in 1821, Thomas James led a group from St. Louis to Santa Fe to establish a trade route. These explorers and traders followed a route that descended the Mississippi River to the mouth of the Arkansas River and proceeded west along the Cimarron River. During the 1820s and 1830s the Creek and Seminole tribes were moved to the area between the southern boundary of the Cherokee Outlet and the Canadian River, but due to their support for the Confederacy during the Civil War, these tribes lost land as a result of the Reconstruction Treaties of 1866. Part of this lost land was situated in what was CERT 4-4 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview called the Unassigned Lands which was opened to Euroamerican settlers on April 22, 1889 (Wilson 2020).
The Kansas Southern Railway (later the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway [AT&SF]) constructed a railway from the Kansas-Oklahoma border to Purcell, Indian Territory prior to the land opening in 1889.
Station points along the route were established including two in the future Logan County at Beaver Creek (later Alfred and now Mulhall) and Deer Creek (now Guthrie). A well was dug at Deer Creek station to supply water for the steam engines which was later utilized by many participants in the Land Run of 1889. The AT&SF line was also used for the access to Arkansas City, Kansas, to the north, and to Purcell, Indian Territory, from the south. After the passage of the Organic Act on May 2, 1890, Logan County was organized as County One and on August 5, 1890, voters selected Logan as the county name in honor of U.S. Sen. John A. Logan. Guthrie was designated as the county seat and the capital of Oklahoma Territory, the state capital, from 1907 to 1910 (Wilson 2020).
In 1908, Logan County's reported industries included agriculture, manufacturing, and stock raising.
Farmers had 300,000 acres under cultivation with principal crops including cotton, com, hay, alfalfa, wheat, forage sorghum, and Kaffir com. After participating in the Land Run of 1889, Zack Mulhall established a large ranching operation in the county. At the turn of the twentieth century, the area around Crescent produced large quantities of fruits such as apples, peaches, pears, grapes, and plums that were shipped to outside markets on the Denver, Enid, and Gulf Railroad. By 1930, livestock numbered 20,720 hogs, 15,462 cattle, 4,668 horses, 2,447 mules, and 2,314 sheep and goats. Records show at the time Logan County had 2,833 farms, of which 60.9 percent were operated by tenants. By 1963, the county reported 53,500 chickens, 45,000 cattle, 2,300 milk cows, 5,400 hogs, and 5,200 sheep. County farmers had planted 67,100 acres in wheat, 16,700 acres in barley, 13,000 acres in oats, 9,600 acres in sorghums, and 2,260 acres in cotton. By the turn of the twenty-first century, Logan County had declined to 983 farms comprising 380,529 acres (Wilson 2020).
Logan County registered 26,563 residents in 1900. At 1907 statehood, the population had grown to 30,711. In 1910, when the state capital was moved from Guthrie to Oklahoma City, the federal census registered 31,740 inhabitants. Thereafter, the numbers steadily declined to 18,662 in 1960. In 1970, the population rebounded to 19,645, and it climbed to 29,011 in 1990. At the tum of the twenty-first century, Logan County had 33,924 residents. In 2010 census counted 41,848, of whom 81.0 percent were white, 9.1 percent African American, 3.3 percent American Indian, and 0.5 percent Asian. Hispanic ethnicity was identified at 5.2 percent (Wilson 2020).
CERT 4-5 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview As early as 1889, two brick plants operated in Guthrie. By 1910, Guthrie also had a textile mill known as the Pioneer Cotton Mill and a structural steel foundry known as the Southwestern Iron Works. By 1918, eleven cotton gins, six grain elevators, one flour mill, and one corn mill served the larger agricultural communities in Logan County (Wilson 2020). In 1930, Crescent had three cotton gins and one milling company, Guthrie had one cotton oil mill, three cotton gins, and four milling companies, Marshall had an elevator and a grain company, and Orlando had a cotton oil company (Wilson 2020). Oil and gas drilling activity in Logan County began in 1912 near Mulhall and has been an important part of the county's economy and culture. By 1915, the Cimarron Valley Oil Company was the first major investor in Logan County. Logan County experienced three major oil strikes. The first was at Crescent (ca. 1926), the second at Roxana ( 192 7), and the third at the Guthrie Pool ( 1941 ). Following the first two strikes, the boomtown of Roxana sprang up overnight and was platted on July 21, 1927, approximately four miles southwest of Marshall. The success in the Roxana Field brought oil companies such as Wentz Oil Corporation to the area, however during the early 1930s the Great Depression and natural disasters such as fire and a tornado brought about the demise of the town (Wilson 2020). Although these three fields dominated the county's production, the Langston Field (opened in 1934) and the Coyle Fields (discovered in 1951) have also contributed to the county's petroleum production (Wilson 2020).
In 1965, the Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Site was established in the APE to enrich uranium fuel for use in nuclear power plants. The Cimarron site was owned and operated by Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (KMNC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation. The Cimarron facility operated under two special nuclear material (SNM) licenses. License SNM-928 was issued for the production of uranium fuel, and License SNM-1174 was issued for the production of mixed oxide fuel. The principal operation under License SNM-928 involved the fabrication of enriched uranium reactor fuel pellets, and eventually fuel rods. A third license, License 35-12636-02, was issued for the possession of sealed sources (all cesium-137) for instrument calibration.
Mixed oxide fuel was produced in the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication (MOFF) facility from 1970 through 1975. Liquid uranyl nitrate and plutonium nitrate solutions were blended, co-precipitated, calcined, milled, pressed into pellets, and assembled in fuel pins. The MOFF facility was decommissioned and released for unrestricted use in 1993.
Enriched uranium fuel was produced at the Uranium Plant from 1966 through 1975. Process facilities included a main production building; several one-story ancillary buildings, five process-related collection ponds, two original sanitary lagoons, one new sanitary lagoon, a waste incinerator, several uncovered storage areas, and three burial grounds. The main production building was divided into six major areas:
CERT 4-6 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Cultural History Overview ceramic uranium dioxide (U02), pellet, scrap recycle and recovery, waste treatment, fabrication, and the high enriched area. In addition, space was provided for auxiliary services such as administrative and laboratory services, maintenance, and warehousing. Highly enriched uranium processing was also performed at the Site within the main process building. Additional operations at the facility included a solvent extraction process to recover uranium from the processing of scrap and from material that did not meet contract specifications.
The Facility has been shut down since the mid-1970s. Remediation of hazardous and radioactive materials has been ongoing since that time. The CERT owns and operates the facility. The property containing the remaining buildings were sold in two transactions in 2015 and 2018 to an aviation related business. The CERT is leasing a small office building until the office is relocated to permanent office facilities to be constructed in the Western Area Treatment Facility.
CERT 4-7 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of Background Review 5.0 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND REVIEW A Burns & McDonnell archeologist performed a background review of the APE and a I-mile (1.6 kilometer [km]) buffer Study Area at the OAS in Norman, Oklahoma and using online sources prior to the commencement of fieldwork.
5.1 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites and Surveys The records review revealed four previously recorded archeological surveys within a I-mile ( 1.6-km) radius of the APE, none of which intersect with the APE (Appendix A: Figure A-3; Table 5-1).
Table 5-1: Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within 1- Mile (1.6-km) Study Area Intersects Date Surveyed by Agency Property 10/14/1999 Duncan NRCS-FEMA No 12/16/1997 NSFW NSFW No 4/30/2010 O'Shea ODOT No 7/2/2004 Graystone FCC No Source: OAS 2018 The review also identified one previously recorded archeological site within the I-mile (1.6-km) buffer (Attachment A: Figure A-3; Table 5-2). The site does not intersect with the APE. No additional previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the APE or I-mile (1.6-km) buffer after examining the OLI, and the NRHP National Park Gallery Database.
Table 5-2: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within 1- Mile (1.6-km) Study Area NRHP Eligibility Trinomial Site Type Recommendation Intersects Property Historic Not Eligible No 34LG91 Farmstead Source: OAS 2018 A review of historic-age maps covering the APE identified that two buildings once stood within the APE.
Both appear to be residence and likely farmsteads. The buildings are depicted on the USGS Kingfisher, OK, topographic quadrangle map dating to 1892, revised 1922 (Attachment A: Figure A-5; USGS 1892).
One was located along the bluff line and just west of the old route of Highway 74. The other appeared to be east of the sewage disposal ponds shown on the 1970 USGS Crescent topographic map (see Appendix A: Figure A-1; USGS 1970). These residences are missing on subsequent maps dating from 1954, 1957, and 1963 (USGS 1954, 1957, 1963) and no remnants of either were found during the field survey. The CERT 5-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of Background Review Sewage Disposal Ponds were closed between 1976 and 1978 and remained intact until 1993 when the NRC and DEQ authorized the ponds to be backfilled (EPM 2018). (EPM 2018; USGS 1970, 1981 ). In addition to the buildings, constructed berms are also depicted in the floodplain by Highway 74 in the northwest comer of the APE (see Appendix A: Figure A-1; USGS 1970 and "Historic Disturbance" in Appendix A: Figure A-2) These may represent disturbance relating to the construction of the bridge.
The 1892 topographic map also shows the Cimarron River channel was located south of its current position in the valley and into the APE (Attachment A: Figure A-5; USGS 1892). The location of the channel in the late nineteenth century likely correlates to the area currently closest to the river that has point bar sands at the surface. Due to the recent age of the of that portion of the floodplain sediment, no deep trenching was conducted in that area.
CERT 5-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey 6.0 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY Bums & McDonnell cultural resources specialists performed a Phase I cultural resources survey of the approximately 530-acre APE that included shovel testing from May 5 to May 12, 2020, deep mechanical trenching from May 26 to May 28, 2020, and documentation of historic-age non-archeological resources.
During the survey, 237 shovel tests and 18 trenches were excavated within the Property and eight historic-age non-archeological resources were recorded (Appendix A: Figures A-6 through A-11 ).
The APE has been previously disturbed in the uplands due to previous waste ponds (both related to the Kerr-McGee facility and older constructed ponds in the flood plain), water monitor wells,, previous structures, existing pipeline utilities, soil remediation activities, reservoir damming and erosion mitigation, and natural deflation of the landforms (see Appendix A: Figure A-2; Appendix C:
Photographs C-1 through C-11 ). The floodplain was mostly undisturbed, however previous disturbances noted include berm construction, water monitor wells, and channelized drainages to the river (Appendix C: Photographs C-12 through C-22).
At the time of the survey, ground surface visibility was generally less than 10 percent in most places with some scattered erosional areas of the uplands providing a visibility of 50 percent or more. Shovel tests in the upland and along the bluff were typically a yellowish red (5YR 5/6) sandy loam above a red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay or sandy clay loam at approximately 40 to 50 centimeters below surface (cmbs). Shovel tests in the upland were generally terminated at a very compacted clay subsoil horizon or shallow sandstone bedrock (see Appendix B: Table B-1; Appendix C: Photographs C-9 through C-11 ). In the floodplain, soil exposed in shovel tests and trenches were typically a mix of various alluvial layers including a reddish brown (5YR 3/4) sandy loam and silty clay loam, a light red (2.5YR 6/6) unconsolidated sand, a reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) sandy loam, a dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy clay loam, and a reddish brown (5YR 5/4) sandy loam in varying stratigraphic order to the depth of a meter (see Appendix B: Table B-1; Appendix C: Photographs C-20 through C-22). No cultural material was observed.
Mechanical trench testing revealed three main strata in the Cimarron River valley floodplain (see Appendix A: Figure A-4). The first stratum extends from the surface to between 20 cm and 60 cm deep. It consists of brown (7.5YR 4/3 and 5YR 3/2), reddish brown (5YR 4/3 and 4/4), and dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) silty loam, silty clay loam, and loamy sand. The second stratum is fine, single-grained, reddish brown (5YR 3/4) sand with a loose consistency ranging to a depth from 50 cmbs to 150 cmbs (Appendix B: Table B-2; Appendix C: Photographs C-23 through C-40). This fine-grained sand overlays a third CERT 6-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey stratum of pale yellow (2.5Y 8/3) or yellow (2.5Y 8/6) coarse, poorly sorted, single-grained sand. No cultural material, or potential cultural-bearing horizon was observed in any of the strata (Appendix B:
Table B-2).
The surface soils are weakly developed and no buried soils were observed during trench excavation or shovel testing. The soils formed on the floodplain typically exhibited A-C or A-Bw profiles (Appendix B:
Table B-2).
As noted, the entire floodplain is underlain by Stratum 3 which is coarse-grained cross-bedded sands. The top of this unit generally occurs between 50 and 150 cmbs and it is approximately 6 m (20 ft) thick, based on vertical profiles compiled for the Property (ENSR 2006). These coarse-grained sands appear to be point bar deposits from the Cimarron River as it migrated to the north. Strata 1 and 2 are interpreted as overbank alluvium or slackwater deposits consisting of stratified layers of clay, silt, and fine-grained sand. Strata 1 and 2 have upward fining sequences consistent with overbank sedimentation from a source that is moving progressively farther away (to the north in this instance).
Five of the trenches (T-10, T-15, T-16. T-17, and T- 18) were close enough to the upland escarpment to contain what appeared to be alluvial fan/ colluvial apron sediments. In general, these areas have thicker and more textually varied and rubified Strata 1 and 2. The reddened sediments are similar to soil colors noted during upland shovel testing. No buried soils were found in these areas and Stratum 3 underlies these sediments.
Given the weak soil development in the floodplain and based on review of geomorphic studies in the Cimarron River valley, it appears the floodplain and alluvial fan/ colluvial apron deposits are very late Holocene in origin (see Section 3.1). The Property includes a section of the lowest geomorphic surface in the valley, the Qt-0. This landform sediment assemblage likely aggraded after about 1,250 years ago. It appears the river meandered to the edge of the escarpment at some point during the late Holocene and has migrated north to its current position after that point. Upriver in Kingfisher County, the surface of the Qt-1 alluvium has been dated to approximately 1,250 years old and the underlying sediment assemblage contains the Holocene and very late Pleistocene alluvial sedimentary record (see Lepper and Scott 2005; Scott 1999). Therefore, the sediments in the floodplain are likely younger than 1,250 years, assuming the Qt-1 remained stable enough to develop the surface soil at that time and the Qt-0 was aggrading. The weakly developed A-horizons and A-C or A-Bw profiles recorded during trenching suggests this area only attained quasi-landscape stability in the last couple hundred years. Given the apparently recent alluvial deposits and lack of buried soils in the Qt-0 sediment assemblage, the potential for buried cultural CERT 6-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey materials is considered low in the portion of the APE within the Cimarron River valley and valley margins.
6.1 Historic-age Buildings and Structures Archeologists recorded several historic-age buildings and structures within the property boundaries, including several components of the KMNC Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Plant (Appendix D). The Architectural Historian provided the following brief descriptions of each resource, including preliminary NRHP eligibility and effect assessments.
6.1.1 Kerr-McGee Facility Buildings Archeologists recorded three buildings (Resources 01-03), a structure associated with Resource 01 (Resource O1a), and three diesel water pumps (Resources 04-06) historically associated with the KMNC Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Plant ( operational from 1966 to 1975) (Appendix A:Figures A-6 through A-11; Appendix C: Photographs C-41 through C-74 ). The buildings are clustered near the southwestern comer of the property along with remnant driveway and parking facilities and a large concrete slab associated with the no-longer-extant uranium fuel fabrication plant. These buildings represent the last architectural remnants of the approximately 840-acre facility. The Cimarron facility produced mixed oxide fuel from 1970 through 1975 and enriched uranium fuel from 1966 through 1975 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [USNRC] 2019). Historically, the site contained "buildings, collection ponds, sanitary lagoons, storage areas, and burial areas" (USNRC 2019). Appendix A: Figure A-12 shows the location of the relevant features of the facility, including the former buildings and roads in relation to the existing architectural resources.
Kerr-McGee began operations at the site in 1966, when they received a Radioactive Materials License to construct uranium fuel fabrication facilities. The Atomic Energy Commission issued the company a second license in 1970 for the MOFF facilities, and production continued until 1975. Once a top employer in the state, the facility gained infamy after the death of union leader and reported whistle-blower Karen Silkwood, who died in a car crash after threatening to expose safety and material handling violations. The plant suspended operations the year after her death. Decommissioning efforts began in 1976. The facility's closing was followed by lawsuits, and the events received attention in popular media and film.
6.1.2 Resource 01 (MOFF Building)
Resource 01 was constructed circa 1969 and began operations in April of 1970 (Appendix A: Figure A-l O; Appendix C: Photographs C-44 through C-50). The building is the former MOFF facility, more CERT 6-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey commonly referred to as the plutonium plant. Nuclear fuel containing plutonium was manufactured in this building. The large irregular plan building is two stories with a basement comprising precast, prestressed, reinforced concrete exterior wall and roof panels and concrete floors. The building has a built-up roof originally topped with mopped on asphalt, felt roofing insulation, and gravel. The building panels are of sandwich construction erected on grade beams supported on drilled piers. The facility was constructed to be "air-tight" (Cimarron Corporation 1988) and features minimal fenestration in line with its industrial design, including hinged metal doors with metal stairs on the northern fa9ade and large louvered vents on the second story of the central wing. Subsequent tenants of the building have added a covered entryway over the personnel portal on the southern fa9ade and installed a large metal overhead entry door in one of the concrete panels east of the entry. Other design features are limited and include incised pentagonal outlines on the exterior concrete panels. Immediately north of the building is the associated cooling plant, Resource 01 a (Appendix A: Figure A-1 0; Appendix C: Photographs C-49 and C-50).
6.1.3 Resource 02 (Warehouse #4)
Resource 02 is a large multi-height industrial structure with a multi-bay single-story rear wing (Appendix A: Figure A-1 0; Appendix C: Photographs C-51 through C-60). The building served as a warehouse during the facility's operating years. After nuclear fuel production ended in 1975, the former warehouse remained in industrial use. In the 1980s, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation oversaw research and development for an ultra-fine titanium dioxide (TiO2) production process in the eastern, single-story portion of the building. Also in the 1980s, Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation oversaw research and development for a coal liquification project to convert solid coal to a liquid that could be transported by pipeline. The western (multi-height) portion of the building houses three stories of processing equipment associated with that endeavor, and the vessels, tubing, valves, etc. that are located north of the building were part of that project. The structure is clad in corrugated metal paneling, and the lateral fa9ades of the multi-height wing are punctuated by paired louvered vents. The rear wing features both metal hinged personnel doors and an overhead bay entry door.
6.1.4 Resource 03 (Emergency Response Building)
Resource 03 is a circa 1970s metal-frame pole building (Appendix A: Figure A-1 0; Appendix C:
Photographs C-61 through C-67). The linear plan building is currently used as an office and originally served as an emergency response station. The building has a low-pitched front-gabled metal roof, corrugated metal panel cladding, and is punctuated by 6/6 vinyl sash windows covered by metal screens.
The main entry is via a vestibule on the southern fa9ade with a metal hinged door and a flat roof. A secondary entry is via a vestibule on the northern fa9ade with a glass and metal panel door. The building is situated at the main entrance to the facility north of the driveway and adjacent to several parking spots.
CERT 6-4 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey 6.1.5 Resources 04 through 06 Resources 04 through 06 comprise three abandoned diesel pumps historically used to pump water from the Cimarron River to the facility (Appendix A: Figure A-7; Appendix C: Photographs C-69 through C-76). The machinery is atop raised metal platforms with metal railings and stair located at the northwest comer of the property south of the Cimarron River.
6.1.6 Resource 07 Resource 07 is a mid-twentieth century corral and associated wire fence located in the floodplain of the Cimarron River valley (Appendix A: Figures A-8 and A-11; Appendix C: Photographs C-77 through C-83). The corral measures approximately 40 m west-to-east by 14 m north-to-south and is composed of metal pipe with welded metal rods. The corral layout consists of three equal-size pens connected to a southern west-to-east hallway. The western pen has a loading chute extending from the west wall. West of the corral is a crudely welded metal cage or wagon with two metal wagon wheels connected by a spoke.
A historic-period topographic map from 1970 depicts an unenclosed structure in the area that may represent the corral (USGS 1970). Resource 07 does not have any known historical associations important to the local or national history and is not distinctive in form or design. Furthermore, it is not part of an archeological site. Therefore, it is not recommended as eligible for NRHP listing.
6.2 NRHP Eligibility and Effect In general, a property must meet at least one of four Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) evaluation criteria to be considered eligible for the NRHP:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Resources 01 through 06 maintain historic associations with a facility important in the nuclear history of the United States and are likely eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion A. In addition to its significance under NRHP Criterion A, Resource 0 1 represents a distinctive example of an industrial property type and appears eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion C. Despite their potential NRHP CERT 6-5 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Results of the Cultural Resources Survey eligibility, the proposed groundwater remediation designs will avoid direct impacts to the resources, and they all lack integrity of setting due to loss of associated building stock and previous remediation activities. Furthermore, the proposed improvements are primarily underground and do not have the potential to impact any character-defining features of the resources regardless of their NRHP eligibility status. No further consideration of impacts to the resources under Section l 06 is recommended in association with the current Project.
CERT 6-6 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey Conclusions and Recommendations
7.0 CONCLUSION
S AND RECOMMENDATIONS The archeological survey of the CERT APE did not identify any archeological resources. Three historic buildings (Resources 0 1-03 ), one structure (Resource 0 1a), and three historic diesel pumps (Resources 04-06) associated with the former Kerr-McGee facility, and one metal corral (Resource 07) likely associated with pre-Kerr-McGee ownership of the property were recorded as standing historic structures .
Resource 07 does not have any known historical associations important to the local or national history and is not distinctive in form or design. Furthermore, it is not part of an archeological site. Therefore, it is not recommended as eligible forNRHP listing. Resources 01-06 maintain historic associations with a facility important in the nuclear history of the United States and are likely eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion A. Additionally, Resource 0 1 represents a distinctive example of an industrial property type and appears eligible for NRHP inclusion under Criterion C. Despite their potential NRHP eligibility, the current Project would not impact the resources directly, and they all lack integrity of setting due to loss of associated building stock and previous remediation activities. Furthermore, the proposed improvements / remediation measures are primarily underground and do not have the potential to impact any character-defining features of the resources regardless of their NRHP eligibility status. As such, no further consideration of impacts to the resources under Section I 06 is recommended in association with the current Project.
CERT 7-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey References Cited
8.0 REFERENCES
CITED Adams, G.P, and D.L. Bergman 1995 Geohydrology of Alluvium and Terrace Deposits, Cimarron River from Freedom to Guthrie, Oklahoma. USGS WRI 95-4066.
Anderson, Adrian D. ( editor) 1975 The Cooperton Mammoth: An Early Man Bone Quarry. Great Plains Journal 14(2):131-173.
Bement, Leland C.
1999 The Cooper Site. Oklahoma Archeological Survey. Electronic document, http://facultystaff.ou.edu/B/Leland.C.Bement-l/Cooper%20Site.html, accessed May 25, 2020.
Blackmar, Jeanette M. and Jack L. Hofman 2006 The Paleoarchaic of Kansas. In Kansas Archaeology, edited by Robert J. Hoard and William E. Banks, pp. 46-75. Published in association with the Kansas State Historical Society. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Bozell, John R.
2006 Plains Woodland Complexes of Western Kansas and Adjacent Portions of Nebraska and Colorado. In Kansas Archaeology, edited by Robert J. Hoard and William E. Banks, pp.93-104. Published in association with the Kansas State Historical Society. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Brooks, Robert L.
2009 Prehistoric Native Peoples. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. Electronic document, www.okhistory .org, accessed May 25 , 2020.
Brooks, Robert L., R. R. Drass, and F. E. Swenson 1985 Prehistoric Farmers of the Washita River Valley: Settlement and Subsistence Patterns during the Plains Village Period. Archeological Resource Survey Report 23, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman.
Caire, William, Jack D. Tyler, Bryan P. Glass, and Michael A. Mares 1989 Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Cimarron Corporation 1988 Report No. 6 -Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Kerr-McGee Cimarron Plutonium Fuel Plant. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operation Office.
Curtis, N. M., W. E. Ham, and K. S. Johnson 2008 Geomorphic Provinces of Oklahoma. In Earth Sciences and Mineral Resources of Oklahoma, edited by Kenneth S. Johnson and Kenneth V. Luza, p. 8. Educational Publication No. 9. Oklahoma Geological Survey. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
CERT 8-1 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey References Cited Drass, Richard R.
1984 The Barkhiemer Site, 34SM29: A Late Archaic/Woodland Camp in Central Oklahoma.
In Contributions to Cross Timbers Prehistory, edited by Patricia L. Kawecki and Don G.
Wyckoff, pp. 149-230. Oklahoma Archeological Survey Studies in Oklahoma's Past 12 and Cross Timbers Heritage Association Contribution 3.
1997 Culture Change on the Eastern Margins of the Southern Plains. Oklahoma Archeological Survey Studies in Oklahoma's Past 19 and Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir 7.
University of Oklahoma, Norman.
1998 The Southern Plains Villagers. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W.
Raymond Wood, pp. 415-455. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
1999 Redefining Plains Village Complexes in Oklahoma: the Paoli Phase and the Redbed Plains Variant. Plains Anthropologist 44: 121-140.
2001 Southern Plains Village Complexes in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Archeological Survey.
Electronic document, http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/D/Richard.R.Drass-l/ accessed May 25, 2002.
Drass, Richard R. and Timothy G. Baugh 1997 The Wheeler Phase and Cultural Continuity in the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 42: 183-204.
ENSR Corporation (ENSR) 2006 Conceptual Site Model, (Revision -01) Cimarron Site, Crescent, Oklahoma. Report completed for Tronox, on-file at Burns & McDonnell.
Environmental Properties Management (EPM) 2018 Cimarron Facility Decommissioning Plan -Revision 1. Prepared by Environmental Properties Management for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Garrett Pool, Carolyn 2009 Wichita. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society.
Electronic document, www.okhistory.org, accessed May 25, 2020.
Hackett, C. W.
1941 Pichardo 's Treatise on the Limits of Louisiana and Texas 3. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hoagland, B. W.
2008 Vegetation of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Educational Publication #9.
Norman.
Hofman, Jack L 1989 Prehistoric Culture History: Hunters and Gatherers in the Southern Great Plains. In From Clovis to Comanchero: Archeological Overview of the Southern Great Plains, by J.L.
Hoffman, R.L. Brooks, J.S. Hays, D.W. Owsley, R.L. Jantz, M.K. Marks, and M.H.
Manhein. Arkansas Archeological Research Series 35.
Hofman, Jack L., and Russell W. Graham 1998 The Paleo-Indian Cultures of the Great Plains. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W.R. Wood, pp.87-139. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
CERT 8-2 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey References Cited Kavanagh, Thomas W.
2009 Comanche (tribe). Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. Electronic document, www.okhistory.org, accessed May 25, 2020.
Kay, Marvin 1998 The Central and Southern Plains Archaic. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W. R. Wood, pp. 173-200. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kracht, Benjamin R.
2009 Kiowa (tribe). Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. Electronic document, www.okhistory.org, accessed May 25, 2020.
Latham, Mark A.
2007 Cultural Resources Site Detection Survey at Camp Gruber Joint Maneuver Training Center-Heavy, Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, Missouri.
Lepper, Kenneth, and Gregory F. Scott 2005 Late Holocene Aeolian Activity in the Cimarron River Valley of West-Central Oklahoma. Geomorphology 70:42-52.
McGrath, K. C., J. H. Ray, and D. Benn 1988 Phase II Testing of Sites 23GR539, 23GR600, and 23GR601, for the Sac River Truck Sewer, City of Springfield, Green County, Missouri: 1988. CAR-734. Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield.
Moore, John H.
2009 Cheyenne, Southern. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. Electronic document, www.okhistory.org, accessed May 25, 2020.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2020 NRCS Web Soil Survey. Retrieved May 25, 2020, from http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
NetrOnline 2020 Historic Aerials. Electronic document, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, Accessed June 1, 2020.
O'Brien, Michael J.
1996 Middle and Late Woodland Subsistence and Ceramic Technology in the Central Mississippi River Valley: Selected Studies from the Burkemper Site, Lincoln County, Missouri. Illinois State Museum Reports ofInvestigations 52. Springfield, Illinois.
O'Brien, M. J., and W.R. Wood 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS) 2016a Oklahoma Prehistory Timeline. Electronic document, https://www.ou.edu/archsur/flash/
oklahoma.html, accessed November 11, 2016.
2016b 34BL46. Electronic document, https://www.ou.edu/archsur/counties/blaine.htm, accessed November 11, 2016.
CERT 8-3 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey References Cited 2016c The Certain Site. Electronic document, http://www.ou.edu/cas/archsur/counties/
beckham.htm, accessed November 10, 2016.
2016d The Roulston-Rogers Site. Electronic document, http://www.ou.edu/cas/archsur/counties/
seminole.htm, accessed November 10, 2016.
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 2016 Fishing Species. Electronic document, http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/fishing/
species, accessed May 17, 2017.
Sabo, George, III, and Ann M. Early 1990 Prehistoric Culture History. In Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, by G. Sabo III, A. M. Early, J.C. Rose, B. A. Burnett, L. Vogele, Jr., and J.P. Harcourt, pp.34-120. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 31, Fayetteville.
Scott, G.F.
1999 Aeolian Modification ofPleistocene Terraces Along the Cimarron River in Major County, Oklahoma. Master's thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1892 Kingfisher. 1:125,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
1954 Oklahoma City. 1:250,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
1957 Oklahoma City. 1 :250,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
1963 Oklahoma City. 1:250,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
1970 Crescent. 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
1981 Crescent. 1 :24,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle map. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) 2019 Cimarron (Kerr-McGee). https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/kerr-mcgee-cimarron-corporation-former-fuel-fabrication-facility.html. Accessed June 2020.
Vehik, Rain and Susan Vehik 1997 Archaeological/Historical Survey ofParts of Camp Gruber Training Center, Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Vehik and Vehik Consulting, Norman, Oklahoma.
Vehik, Susan C.
1984 The Woodland Occupations. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Bell, pp.
175-197. Academic Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Wedel, Mildred M.
1981 The Deer Creek Site, Oklahoma: A Wichita Village Sometimes Called Ferdinandina, an Ethnohistorian's View. Oklahoma Historical Society Series in Anthropology 5.
Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City.
CERT 8-4 Burns & McDonnell
CERT Cultural Resources Survey References Cited Wilson, Linda D.
2020 "Logan County" Electronic document, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=L0005, accessed May 25, 2020.
Wyckoff, Don G., James L. Theler, and Brian J. Carter (editors) 2003 The Burnham Site in Northwest Oklahoma: Glimpses Beyond Clovis? Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.
Wyckoff, Don G., and Robert L. Brooks 1983 Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspective of the State's Archeological Resources, Their Significance, Their Problems and Some Proposed Solutions. Archeological Resource Survey Report 16, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
CERT 8-5 Burns & McDonnell