Appendix K 

Archaeological Sites Technical Study

In coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

 

Archaeological Sites 

Technical Study 

Prepared by 

 

 

July 2016 

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page iii

Contents 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................... v

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Service Type Descriptions ..............................................................................................1-4

1.1.1 Conventional Rail.......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.2 Higher-Speed Rail ......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.3 High-Speed Rail............................................................................................................. 1-4

1.2 Alternative Descriptions .................................................................................................1-5

1.2.1 No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 1-5

1.2.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.......................................1-6

1.2.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio .............................................1-7

1.2.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas .......................................................... 1-8

1.2.5 Station Cities................................................................................................................. 1-9

2.0 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders......................................................2-1

2.1.2 State Laws and Regulations ........................................................................................ 2-2

3.0 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Data Sources...................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Data Collection................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 NRHP Significance Criteria.............................................................................................3-2

3.4 Service-Level Analysis.....................................................................................................3-2

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 EIS Study Area.................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Brief Prehistoric Cultural Background of Region ..........................................................4-1

4.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.......................................4-2

4.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ...........................................4-11

4.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ........................................................4-14

4.3 Archaeological Sites..................................................................................................... 4-17

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................5-3

5.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.........................................5-3

5.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail............................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ...............................................5-4

5.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 5-4

5.3.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-5

5.3.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 5-6

5.3.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-6

5.3.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail .............................................................................. 5-7

5.3.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-8
TBG111814093418SCO

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page iv

5.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ............................................................5-9

5.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail................................................................................. 5-9

5.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-10

5.4.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail..................................................................................5-10

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies .............................................................. 6-1

7.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 9-1

List of Figures 

1-1: Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................................1-2

4-1: Index Map ..................................................................................................................................... 4-26

4-2: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 1................................... 4-27

4-3: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 2................................... 4-28

4-4: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 3................................... 4-29

4-5: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 4................................... 4-30

4-6: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 5................................... 4-31

4-7: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 6................................... 4-32

4-8: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 7................................... 4-33

4-9: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 8................................... 4-34

4-10: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 9................................. 4-35

4-11: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 10 .............................. 4-36

4-12: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 11 .............................. 4-37

4-13: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 12 .............................. 4-38

List of Tables 

1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation ....................................................................1-3

1-2: Cities with Potential Stations....................................................................................................... 1-10

4-1: Prehistoric Archaeological Site Types by Natural Region .............................................................4-1

4-2: Archaeological Sites in Oklahoma—Northern Section (presented north to south 

and west to east).......................................................................................................................... 4-18

4-3: Archaeological Sites in Texas—Northern Section (presented north to south and 

west to east) ................................................................................................................................. 4-19

4-4: Archaeological Sites—Central Section (presented north to south, and west to east) ............. 4-20

4-5: Archaeological Sites—Southern Section (Alternatives S4 and S6 presented north to 

south and west to east) ............................................................................................................... 4-24

5-1: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Geographic Section............................................................5-1

5-2: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Alternative...........................................................................5-1

7-1: Summary of Potential Intensity of Effects on Archaeological Sites .............................................7-2
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page v

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CONV conventional rail

BTAS Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society

EIS environmental impact statement

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

HrSR higher-speed rail

HSR high-speed rail 

IH-35 Interstate Highway 35

ITC Intermodal Transportation Center 

KCS Kansas City Southern 

mph miles per hour 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OAS Oklahoma Archeological Survey 

ODOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation 

Program Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study

TARL Texas Archeological Research Laboratory

TCP traditional cultural properties 

THC Texas Historical Commission

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

U.S.C. United States Code

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction 

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), along with the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), is preparing a service-level environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate intercity 

passenger rail service alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program). The 

purpose of the Program is to enhance intercity mobility by providing enhanced passenger rail 

service as a transportation alternative that is competitive with automobile, bus, and air travel. 

Preparation of the service-level EIS, in support of which this technical study has been prepared, is 

one of two primary objectives of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study). In addition to 

the service-level EIS, TxDOT and FRA are preparing a service development plan for the corridor to 

guide further development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements identified in the 

EIS Record of Decision. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is a partnering state agency 

for the Study and the EIS.

The 850-mile corridor analyzed for the Study runs north-south and roughly parallels Interstate

Highway 35 (IH-35), with the northern point in Edmond, Oklahoma (i.e., northern end of the 

Oklahoma City portion of the corridor), and the southern end in south Texas, potentially in Corpus 

Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, or the Rio Grande Valley, as shown on Figure 1-1. For this service-level 

analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each EIS alternative, based on 

conceptual engineering that considered and avoided obvious physical or environmental constraints. 

These alignments were not refined to optimize performance, reduce cost, avoid specific properties 

or individual environmental resources, or for any other such considerations. If an alternative is 

selected at the service-level for further development, the above considerations would be assessed 

at the project level. A broad corridor of study with a width of 500 feet has been identified along 

each route. Unless described differently, for each environmental resource being analyzed, this 500-

foot EIS Study Area1 is the area in which potentially affected environmental resources are identified 

in proximity to each alternative. This EIS Study Area provides an envelope that could accommodate 

areas for associated effects, including necessary roadway shifts, grade separations, construction 

activities, and affiliated features such as stations and parking, traction-power substations, power 

lines, and maintenance-of-way facilities.

The area for which data were collected is identified as the Study Vicinity. Typically, county-wide data 

were collected for counties partially or completely within the Study Area. 

The analysis provides quantitative information about archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area 

for each alternative and compares it against the No Build Alternative and other build alternatives in 

the same geographic region. The discussion of effects also provides qualitative differences in 

permanent, temporary, and direct and indirect effects that are associated with the service type 

(conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail) relative to the environmental context. 

However, because the 500-foot EIS Study Area does not represent the actual footprint of operation 

 

1 Some environmental resource issues, such as transportation, air quality, and noise and vibration, use broader study 

areas to determine impacts.
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-2

Figure 1-1: Build Alternatives 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-3

or construction phases, the analysis is primarily comparative, based on the presence of the 

resource within the EIS Study Area and the likelihood of effects as appropriate for this service-level 

analysis.

The build alternatives are divided into the following three geographic sections based on the key 

regional markets that could be served by passenger rail improvements:

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas

In addition, the alternatives consist of both a route, which refers to the specific corridor that a 

potential alignment follows, and a service type, which refers to the speed or category of rail 

transportation (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail). The alternatives that have 

been carried forward for analysis in the EIS, including their geographic sections, routes, and service 

types, are listed in Table 1-1 and described in the following sections.

Table 1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation

Route Service Type a 

Northern Section 

N4A CONV

Central Section 

C4A

HrSR

HSR

C4B HrSR

HSR

C4C HrSR

HSR

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR

S6 HrSR

HSR

a CONV = conventional rail (up to 79 to 90 miles per hour [mph]; HrSR = 

higher-speed rail (up to 110 to 125 mph); HSR = high-speed rail (up to 220 

to 250 mph)

The route alternatives were based on the alignments of existing transportation networks with 

corridors potentially suitable for passenger rail operations (i.e., the existing railroad network and 

the existing interstate highway network) (the term “operations” includes maintenance of the 

facilities as well), or they were located on new alignments outside existing transportation corridors. 

Potential alignments described as “following” railway corridors share existing tracks, are located 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-4

within an existing right-of-way, or are generally adjacent to existing tracks, depending on the service 

type. Alternatives that are outside the existing transportation corridor could have greater indirect 

effects than those located in the existing transportation corridor; for example, alternatives outside 

existing corridors could divide neighborhoods or wildlife communities or create a potential new 

barrier.

1.1 Service Type Descriptions 

The three service types (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail) considered in this 

EIS are described below.

1.1.1 Conventional Rail 

Conventional rail typically includes diesel-powered, steel-wheeled trains operating on steel tracks. 

Roadway crossings may be grade-separated depending on the type of roadway and amount of 

traffic, and rail rights-of-way may be fenced. Conventional rail would be operated at speeds up to 

79 to 90 mph and would mostly use existing railroad rights-of-way. For conventional rail 

alternatives, existing railroad track may be used, or in some cases, modifications, such as doubletracking, could be constructed within the existing right-of-way to accommodate additional trains.

1.1.2 Higher-Speed Rail 

Higher-speed rail is similar to conventional rail in several respects. In many cases, higher-speed rail 

trains can run on the same steel tracks that support conventional rail, but higher speeds can 

require improvements, such as upgrading wooden ties with concrete ties, improving signaling, and 

upgrading roadway crossings. In this case, higher-speed rail trains are assumed to be dieselpowered. Higher-speed rail would be operated at speeds up to 110 to 125 mph. Where proposed 

within an existing railroad right-of-way, a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and 

passenger services would be constructed. Because of its maximum speed and because train 

frequency would be similar to conventional rail, higher-speed rail could operate on a single track 

with passing locations and would not require double-tracking. Where higher-speed rail is proposed

outside an existing transportation corridor, the new alignment would be designed with curves and 

other features that could accommodate high-speed rail service if warranted by ridership and 

economically feasible in the future. However, unlike high-speed rail, the design would not include 

electrification or a full double track, and some grade crossings would remain.

1.1.3 High-Speed Rail 

High-speed rail includes electric trains powered by an overhead power supply system. Train sets are 

steel wheel on steel rail, but are designed to operate at high speeds with an aerodynamic shape, 

and suspension and braking systems are designed for high-speed travel. High-speed rail would be 

operated at speeds up to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would be fenced and fully gradeseparated. The alignment would be electrified and double-tracked. This service type could only 

reach its maximum speeds outside existing transportation corridors because existing railroad 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-5

alignments are not compatible with the speeds required and they do not have the required space 

for separation of freight and high-speed rail. In areas where this service type is within existing 

transportation corridors, it would operate at lower speeds.

1.2 Alternative Descriptions 

For this service-level analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each route 

alternative, based on conceptual engineering that considered obvious physical or environmental 

constraints. They are not detailed alignments that have been refined to optimize performance, 

reduce cost, avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources, or similar 

considerations, which would be assessed at the project-level phase for alternatives carried forward 

for further analysis. 

The alternatives evaluated in the service-level EIS, shown on Figure 1-1, have been developed to a 

level of detail appropriate for a service-level analysis: the route alternatives represent a potential 

corridor where rail improvements could be implemented but do not specify the precise location of 

the track alignment. When a route alternative is refined to include a service type (conventional, 

higher-speed, or high-speed rail), it is then referred to as an alternative. Alternatives in the 

Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as individual, stand-alone projects or in 

combination with alternatives in another section. In addition, more than one alternative in the 

Central Section and Southern Section could be built in the future because the alternatives provide 

different service types for independent destinations. Details on connecting the alternatives would 

be determined during project-level studies. 

Potential alignments are described below in terms of nearby transportation corridors and cities. For 

example, potential alignments are described as “following” railway corridors, which could mean that 

they are sharing existing tracks, within an existing right-of-way or generally adjacent to existing 

tracks depending on the service type.

The Southern Section alternatives include a potential extension to Monterrey, Mexico. The EIS 

evaluates alignment corridors only within the United States; however, the potential extension to 

Monterrey has been included for ridership analysis purposes, and FRA and TxDOT have initiated 

coordination with the Mexican government about the potential extension.

1.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not fulfill the Program’s purpose and need but is carried forward as 

a baseline alternative against which the build alternatives are compared. The No Build Alternative

would consist of the existing transportation network, including roadway, passenger rail, and air

travel in the Study Vicinity and committed improvements to these systems. The No Build Alternative 

includes existing and planned roadway, passenger rail, and air travel in the Study Vicinity (including 

operation, maintenance, and expansion). Information was collected from current regional 

transportation plans within the Study Vicinity and websites describing services, such as train 

schedules. These improvements and their evaluation at this service-level stage would require 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-6

project-specific assessment. Conducting detailed project-specific assessments at this stage of the 

program development process is not feasible, except from a cumulative analysis perspective.

1.2.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

Due to feasibility based on initial ridership and cost information, only one route alternative with one 

service type was considered feasible in the Northern Section: Alternative N4A with conventional rail.

1.2.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Alternative N4A would begin in Edmond and follow the BNSF 

rail alignment south to Oklahoma City. The alternative would 

continue south along the BNSF rail alignment to Norman, 

Oklahoma; through Metro Junction, near Denton, Texas; and on 

to Fort Worth (as does the Heartland Flyer). From Fort Worth, 

the alternative would continue east to Dallas following the 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks. From Edmond to Dallas, 

the route would be approximately 260 miles long. Because 

existing freight traffic would not preclude passenger service 

along this section of track, the route would provide passenger 

rail service on the existing BNSF track, with potential 

improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way.

Alternative N4A would provide several improvements over the 

existing Heartland Flyer service. Alternative N4A would increase 

the number of daily round trips along this route (the Heartland 

Flyer currently offers one round trip per day), and the N4A route 

would extend from Fort Worth to Dallas without requiring a 

transfer (the Heartland Flyer service currently terminates in Fort 

Worth). In addition, Alternative N4A would provide improvements to existing station facilities and 

new train equipment with more onboard amenities, including business class available for a 

premium price.

Alternative N4A assumes diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running three to six daily round trips. 

Two or three of the round trips would operate on an accelerated schedule, making roughly seven

stops, with the remaining local trains making up to 12 stops.
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-7

1.2.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Three route alternatives, each with higher-speed and high-speed rail 

options, were evaluated in the Central Section: Alternatives C4A, C4B, and C4C.

The Central Section alternatives would provide several 

improvements over the existing Texas Eagle service in this 

corridor. All of the alternatives would increase the number of 

daily round trips along this route (the Texas Eagle currently offers 

one round trip per day). The high-speed rail options would provide 

faster service between Dallas and Fort Worth and Antonio —

2 hours versus 8 hours for the Texas Eagle Service. In addition, 

the Central Section alternatives would provide improvements to 

existing station facilities and new train equipment.

1.2.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE 

tracks east to Dallas. From Dallas, it would follow the BNSF 

alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a new 

alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors to 

accommodate maximum operating speeds. Though outside 

existing transportation corridors, the southern portion of 

Alternative C4A would generally follow the BNSF alignment for 

about 250 miles, traveling south from Waxahachie through 

Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor, and Austin to San Antonio.

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to nine stops.

1.2.3.2 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B would serve both Fort Worth and Dallas, with 

trains following a new elevated high-speed rail alignment over 

IH-30. In Arlington (between Dallas and Fort Worth), the 

alternative would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment outside 

existing transportation corridors. The alternative would then 

follow the same high-speed rail alignment as Alternative C4A from Hillsboro to San Antonio.
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-8

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail assumes new high-performance diesel-locomotive hauled 

equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven stops, and 

local trains would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to eight stops. 

1.2.3.3 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would follow the same potential alignment as 

Alternative C4A from Fort Worth east to Dallas and south to San 

Antonio, but would include a link from Hillsboro directly to Fort 

Worth parallel to the UPRR alignment. Service on the Alternative 

C4C route would operate in a clockwise direction, running from 

Hillsboro to Fort Worth, to Dallas, back to Hillsboro, and south to 

San Antonio in order to serve Fort Worth directly (while also 

being compatible with the general service for Alternative C4A).

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to nine stops.

1.2.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Two route alternatives were evaluated in the Southern Section: 

Alternative S4, with higher-speed rail, and Alternative S6, with 

higher-speed and high-speed rail options.

1.2.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 would begin in San Antonio and travel southeast 

along the UPRR alignment to George West, where it would 

continue outside existing transportation corridors to Alice. At 

Alice, the alternative would divide into three legs at a stop. The 

first leg would travel west along the Kansas City Southern (KCS) 

Railway to San Diego, Texas; it would then travel outside existing 

transportation corridors to east of Laredo in an alignment that 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-9

would allow higher speeds and rejoin the KCS Railway to enter the highly developed Laredo area. 

The second leg would travel south along abandoned railroad tracks to McAllen and east to 

Harlingen and Brownsville. The third leg would travel east along the KCS Railway to Corpus Christi.

Alternative S4 assumes new high-performance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running four to 

six daily round trips. Depending on corridor demand model forecasts, the primary service may be 

designated as Laredo-Alice-San Antonio and Corpus Christie-Alice-San Antonio, with a connecting 

feeder from Brownsville, Harlingen, and McAllen.

1.2.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 would begin in San Antonio and travel south on a 

new alignment outside existing transportation corridors to a 

station near the Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge, which 

crosses the Rio Grande north of Laredo. The alternative would 

then cross on a new railway bridge to join a new rail line being 

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. This 

study only examines the physical effects of the U.S. component 

of this new line, but it does consider the ridership effect of such 

a connection. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new highperformance diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running four 

to six daily round trips between San Antonio and Laredo, which 

would be the only U.S. stops for the alternative. If an extension 

from Laredo to Monterrey is added, the frequency of trips to 

Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those from San 

Antonio to Laredo.

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running eight to 12 daily round trips 

between San Antonio and Laredo. If an extension from Laredo to Monterrey is added, the frequency 

of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those from San Antonio to Laredo.

1.2.5 Station Cities 

The study does not evaluate specific station locations, and no conclusion about the exact location 

of stations will be made as part of the service-level EIS process. However, based on ridership data 

and transit connectivity information developed as part of the alternatives analysis (TxDOT 2014), 

and based on stakeholder input, the cities in which stations would most likely be located have been 

assumed. The size and design of stations would be appropriate for the service type and the route of 

the alternative. Cities that could have stations are listed in Table 1-2.
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 1-10

Table 1-2: Cities with Potential Stations

Oklahoma 

Edmond Pauls Valley

Oklahoma City Ardmore

Norman

Texas 

Gainesville Austin

Fort Worth San Antonio 

Arlington Alice

Dallas Corpus Christi

Waxahachie Harlingen

Waco McAllen

Temple (also serving Killeen) Brownsville

Taylor Laredo
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 2-1

2.0 Regulatory Requirements 

Applicable legislation and regulations pertaining to archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area 

include the following.

2.1.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and implementing 

regulations 36 CFR 800. Requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Furthermore, it requires that federal agencies afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, respective State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and 

other consulting parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed federal undertaking(s). 

The NHPA also provides for consultation with Native American tribes when proposed projects 

might affect cultural or traditional places or resources that have value to a tribe; this value is 

derived from the role the property plays in the community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, 

and practices (NHPA Section 101[d]). These regulations also encourage coordination with the 

environmental review process required by other statutes, including Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] §303 and 23 U.S.C. 

§138), compliance with which is anticipated at the project level. For more information on 

Section 4(f), see the Draft EIS, Chapter 4, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources. 

Regulations in 36 CFR 800 provide the following four-step-by-step process for satisfying the 

Section 106 requirements: (1) initiate consultation with regulatory agencies, concerned Native 

American tribes, and other interested parties; (2) identify historic properties; (3) assess 

adverse effects; and (4) resolve adverse effects. Significant properties are evaluated in 

consultation with the SHPO and must qualify for listing in the NRHP by being at least 50 years 

old, in most cases, and by meeting specific eligibility criteria and standards of integrity (36 CFR 

60.4).

At the project level, the investigation may require procedures to adhere to additional federal 

statutes and regulations, as necessary, which may include the following: 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 

469) and implementing regulations (U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21 [I], §1996). State that federal 

agencies should consult tribes regarding potential impacts from agency actions or undertakings 

that may affect tribal rights to the free exercise of traditional religions including effects on 

religious places and practices to the extent practicable and not inconsistent with the agency’s 

essential functions. This consultation may occur in conjunction with NHPA Section 106 

consultation.

 Executive Order 13007 of 1996. Applies to federal lands and requires federal agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Native American religious 

practitioners; avoid adverse effect on the physical integrity of such sites; maintain the 

confidentiality of information on such sites, where appropriate; and implement procedures to 
TBG111814093418SCO

2.0 Regulatory Requirements

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 2-2

carry out provisions of the order, including provisions to provide notice to Indian tribes of actions 

that might affect sacred sites or access to or ceremonial use of such sites in a manner 

consistent with government-to-government relations.

Additional federal statutes may include the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native 

American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, the Federal Antiquities Act, the Federal Historic 

Sites Act, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.

2.1.2 State Laws and Regulations 

 Oklahoma Antiquities Law of 1965, as amended in 1985 (Oklahoma Statute Title 53, Chapter 

20 [§361]). Applies to projects that may affect cultural resources on state-owned land. Under 

this act, site excavations on state land must be conducted by trained researchers under a 

permit issued by the State Archaeologist at the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS), and 

collections resulting from such excavations must be deposited with a museum or other 

recognized repository in the state. The statute further states that it is unlawful to intentionally 

and knowingly deface American Indian or aboriginal paintings, pictographs, petroglyphs, or other 

marks or carvings on rock or elsewhere that are of archaeological interest and pertain to early

American Indian or aboriginal habitation of the country and to willingly injure, disfigure, remove,

or destroy archaeological resources including a prehistoric or historic structure, site, monument, 

marker, medallion, burial, burial marker, or artifact without lawful authority according to 

provisions of the statute.

 Oklahoma Burial Desecration Law of 1987 (Oklahoma Statute Title 21, Chapter 47 [§1168.0-

1168.6]). Protects human remains and associated burial goods in unmarked graves on both 

state and privately owned land by making it illegal to knowingly disturb, buy, sell, or barter 

human skeletal remains or associated items from unmarked graves. The statute further states 

that those who encounter or discover unmarked graves and their contents, including federal 

and state agencies in performance of their duties, should stop further disturbance activities and 

report the find to appropriate law enforcement in the county of the find and comply with other 

provisions of the statute.

 Texas Antiquities Code of 1969, as amended (Texas Natural Resources Code Title 9, Chapter 

191 [§191.001-191.174]) and associated regulations (Texas Administrative Code Title 13, 

Chapter 26). Serves to locate, protect, and preserve State Antiquities Landmarks located in, on, 

or under lands owned or controlled by the State of Texas or a political subdivision thereof that 

may be affected by proposed projects. Such landmarks include sites, objects, buildings, 

structures and historic shipwrecks, and locations of historical, archaeological, educational, or 

scientific interest including prehistoric American Indian or aboriginal campsites, dwellings and 

habitation sites, aboriginal paintings, petroglyphs, and other marks or carvings on rock or 

elsewhere that pertain to early American Indian or other archaeological sites of every character, 

treasure imbedded in the earth, sunken or abandoned ships and wrecks of the sea or any part 

of their contents, maps, records, documents, books, artifacts, and implements of culture related 

to the inhabitants, prehistory, history, government, or culture of Texas. The code requires notice 
TBG111814093418SCO

2.0 Regulatory Requirements

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 2-3

be provided to the Texas Historical Commission (THC) prior to breaking ground at a project 

location on state or local public land to ensure that project effects on landmarks, whether or not 

they have been identified, are appropriately considered.

 Chapter 711 (Cemeteries) of the Texas Health and Safety Code of 1989, as amended in 2009

(Texas Health and Safety Code Title 8, Subtitle C, Chapter 711) and associated regulations 

(Texas Administrative Code Title 13 Part 2, Chapter 22). Chapter 711 of the Texas Health and 

Safety Code concerns the discovery, notification, permits for, and requirements related to the 

removal of unknown and abandoned cemeteries and graves including those over 100 years of 

age often found in conjunction with archaeological sites. Although this service-level analysis is 

not intended to comply with Chapter 711 because it does not include fieldwork-based 

identification of such cemeteries within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), the statute is 

referenced here for future informational purposes. It states that a railroad, street, road, alley, 

pipeline, telephone, telegraph, electric line, wind turbine, cellular telephone tower, or other 

public utility or thoroughfare may not be placed through, over, or across a part of a dedicated 

cemetery (i.e., one or more intentional human graves) without consent and include provisions 

for discovery, removal, and reburial of cemeteries, particularly those considered unknown, 

abandoned, or otherwise non-perpetual care, within public or private property. Cases where 

newly discovered previously unknown or abandoned cemeteries may be affected by proposed 

construction are prohibited from further disturbance of the cemetery unless and until the 

human remains are removed in accordance with provisions of the code and its associated 

regulations.

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states: “In accordance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470(f), the EIS shall identify all 

properties which may be affected by the alternatives that are included in or eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).” This technical study outlines potential effects on 

archaeological historic properties at the service level. Therefore, this technical study does not 

require a Section 106 analysis of the NHPA or the Texas Antiquities Code because there is no 

proposed undertaking associated at the Program level. Documentation in accordance with Section 

106 and the Texas Antiquities Code would be required at the project level.

With regard to regulations in 36 CFR 800, because of the service level of this evaluation, 

consultation with Indian tribes was limited to informal consultation, which included sending 

coordination letters to known tribes in the EIS Study Area and meeting with tribes interested in 

receiving additional information. This coordination is further described in the Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study Agency and Tribal Coordination Plan. Additional tribal consultation would 

continue at the project level, as required. 

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 3-1

3.0 Evaluation Methods 

This section describes the method to identify archaeological sites listed on the NRHP, 

archaeological sites determined NRHP-eligible by the Texas or Oklahoma SHPO, and archaeological

sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area. NRHP-listed archaeological sites

are sites that have already been formally listed in the NRHP. NRHP-eligible archaeological sites are 

those that have been previously determined eligible for the NRHP by the Texas or Oklahoma SHPO. 

Archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility have not yet been sufficiently assessed,

and therefore no determination of NRHP eligibility has yet been made by the Texas or Oklahoma 

SHPO. Archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility are included in this service-level 

analysis because such sites should be treated as NRHP-eligible sites until final eligibility 

determinations have been made by the Texas or Oklahoma SHPO. Archaeological sites that have 

been determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP do not require further inquiry and have not 

been included in this service-level analysis.

This technical study includes a service-level evaluation of reported archaeological sites in proximity 

to the build alternatives. As such, it identifies recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites 

using an online database of sites maintained by the Texas SHPO, site file repositories in both 

states, and reconnaissance-level data. It does not include a detailed evaluation of potential 

archaeological sites.

This study used a broad approach to determine the potential effects on archaeological sites along 

the alternatives. This study does not discuss historic, architectural, and non-archaeological cultural 

resources. Those property types are discussed in the Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological

Cultural Resources Technical Study (see Appendix J of the Draft EIS).

Another type of cultural resource that should be considered for effects from the build alternatives 

are traditional cultural properties (TCPs). TCPs are a specific type of historic property included or 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP that are associated with cultural beliefs or practices of a living 

community, which are rooted in history and important to the continuing cultural identity of the 

community (Parker and King 1998). TCPs would not be identified until tribal consultation and public 

scoping take place; therefore, specific TCPs were not included in this evaluation.

3.1 Data Sources 

Information on archaeological sites was obtained from electronic databases and physical records at 

research libraries and institutions including the following sources:

 THC’s Texas Historic Sites Atlas online database 

 THC/Texas SHPO’s restricted use library

 University of Texas Archeological Research Laboratory’s (TARL) site file repository and library

 OAS site file repository

In addition to the electronic resources listed above, hard-copy files of site forms, topographic maps, 

and cultural resource reports were reviewed at OAS, TARL, and THC/Texas SHPO offices. These files 
TBG111814093418SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 3-2

provided information on archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area, their locations, and previous 

determinations of NRHP eligibility. Sources used in the preparation of this technical study are listed 

in Section 8.0, References.

3.2 Data Collection 

Data were collected to identify the location, description, and significance of each previously 

identified archaeological site within the EIS Study Area, which is defined as a 500-foot-wide corridor 

for each alternative regardless of whether it travels through urban or rural areas. The NRHP-listed, 

NRHP-eligible, and unknown NRHP-eligible archaeological sites identified during data collection are 

listed in Section 4, Baseline/Affected Environment.

3.3 NRHP Significance Criteria 

Historic properties are prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, TCPs, and districts and buildings,

structures, objects, or landscapes that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. To be eligible, a 

property must be at least 50 years old or be exceptionally important and meet one or more of the 

following criteria for evaluation, as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4:

 Criterion A: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of history.

 Criterion B: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past.

 Criterion C: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

 Criterion D: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to 

prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one of these four criteria, archaeological historic properties must retain their 

stratigraphic or locational integrity, preservation of and sufficient amounts of interpretable 

materials, and cultural association in order to convey their significance.

For this technical study, archaeological sites are defined as any prehistoric or historic site (generally 

50 years of age or older) for which NRHP eligibility may not yet have been formally determined.

Archaeological historic properties, specifically, are defined as those archaeological sites already 

listed on the NRHP or that have been formally determined eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Archaeological sites that have not yet been sufficiently assessed for NRHP listing have been treated 

as historic properties until final eligibility determinations have been made.

3.4 Service-Level Analysis 

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA 

have created a process by which federally assisted undertakings are reviewed for their impacts on 

properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. After the property is identified and evaluated, 
TBG111814093418SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 3-3

the next step is to apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect. These criteria are used to determine whether 

the undertaking could change the characteristics that qualify the property for NRHP inclusion. An 

adverse effect (or impact) is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP. Adverse 

effects on an archaeological historic property consist of the physical encroachment upon an 

archaeological site. In addition to the criteria above, 36 CFR 800.5(b) allows the agency official to 

propose a finding of no adverse effect if the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed to 

avoid impacts.

Most impacts on archaeological sites occur during construction when ground is disturbed. These 

effects are considered direct effects. Impacts during the operations phase are primarily the indirect 

effects of inducing growth whereupon other development exposes disturbance to archaeological

sites. This service-level analysis focused primarily on potential effects during construction.

The likelihood for adverse effects on archaeological sites differs slightly between rail service types

as follows:

 Conventional rail would include only existing railroad rights-of-way, typically using existing 

railroad tracks or modifying existing tracks within the existing right-of-way to accommodate 

additional trains. At-grade railroad crossings and the use of existing stations would be required.

 Higher-speed rail alternatives could be either diesel or electrified. This technology can include 

both new right-of-way, as well as shared right-of-way with existing railroad tracks. Stations may 

be adapted from existing buildings or railroad stations. This potential for reuse of existing 

facilities may reduce the amount of disturbance to areas otherwise left untouched.

 High-speed rail alternatives would be electrified, double tracked, and grade-separated. Highspeed rail service would require a separated right-of-way for the alignment and stations. In 

addition, high-speed rail service would require gradual vertical and large horizontal curve 

changes, making avoidance of specific archaeological sites more difficult than the higher-speed 

rail option. Although the exact locations of new stations are not delineated for this service-level 

analysis, they would likely be located within or adjacent to primarily urban and suburban 

communities, such as Fort Worth, Dallas, Waxahachie, Waco, Temple, Austin, and San Antonio.

Areas subject to intensive development, such as these, may display substantial ground surface 

disturbance depending on soil characteristics and age, topography, geology, and intensity and 

nature of development. This intensive development may affect the integrity of archaeological

sites. Elevated portions of the high-speed rail service type may help avoid some archaeological 

sites.

The following activities were conducted during this service-level analysis:

 Delineated an EIS Study Area for each alternative to evaluate archaeological sites. The EIS 

Study Area for each alternative is a 500-foot-wide corridor within which the rail alignment would 

be positioned during further design development phases.
TBG111814093418SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 3-4

 Prepared a general prehistoric context using the cumulative and interpretive results of 

archaeological research in the subject areas to date. Presented the prehistory and 

environmental setting of the alternatives to provide the general context to evaluate 

archaeological sites identified in the EIS Study Area. Historic cultural background for the EIS 

Study Area is presented in Section 4.2 of the Historic, Architectural, and Non-Archaeological

Cultural Resources Technical Study, included as Appendix J of the Draft EIS.

 Identified known archaeological historic properties (those that are included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP) from electronic databases and physical records at research libraries and 

institutions including the THC’s Texas Historic Sites Atlas online database, the THC/Texas 

SHPO’s restricted use library, TARL’s site file repository and library, and the OAS site file 

repository. Archaeological sites that have been determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP 

do not require further inquiry and are not addressed in the service-level analysis. As appropriate 

for a service-level evaluation, a literature search and a review of previous archaeological 

surveys were not conducted.

 Plotted previously recorded and registered archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area that 

have undetermined eligibility but may meet NRHP eligibility (to be further assessed and formal 

determinations of NRHP eligibility to be completed at the project level). As appropriate for a 

service-level evaluation, no subsurface archaeological investigations were undertaken to locate 

previously unidentified archaeological sites or assess the integrity of previously recorded sites, 

and areas of archaeological sensitivity were not formally delineated. 

 Conducted a preliminary assessment of the potential effects on known archaeological historic 

properties and on previously recorded and registered archaeological sites with undetermined 

NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for each alternative. The assessment of potential 

effects was based on preliminary information and research conducted at the service level; 

potential effects may need to be reassessed based on changes to the proposed Program. 

Formal determination of effects pursuant to NEPA and NHPA would be made during the projectlevel NEPA process.
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-1

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

4.1 EIS Study Area 

The EIS Study Area for archaeological sites was defined in consultation with FRA. As previously 

stated, this service-level analysis of archaeological sites was conducted at a corridor level. Future 

studies conducted at the project level would likely define a specific APE through the development of 

a Programmatic Agreement among FRA, TxDOT, Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), 

and Texas and Oklahoma SHPOs. Project-specific research, including archaeological surveys in 

areas of the APE not previously investigated and site significance assessments of archaeological

sites with unknown NRHP-eligibility, would be conducted for individual projects when they are 

proposed.

This service-level analysis did not identify the locations of potential easements and constructionrelated facilities, such as equipment staging areas, access roads, and utilities. The locations of 

these facilities would likely be identified during project-level analysis, and a specific APE would be 

defined during development of a Programmatic Agreement.

4.2 Brief Prehistoric Cultural Background of Region 

The archaeological cultural background is divided into three geographic sections as shown on 

Figure 1-1. Archaeological site types vary, and often these are partly based on an area’s ecology. 

Five physiographic natural regions compose the EIS Study Area; these regions and their typical 

archaeological associations are identified in Table 4-1. This is not an inclusive list of all types of 

archaeological sites, but is presented as a general guideline for the range of prehistoric site types 

that might be present in the EIS Study Area.

Table 4-1: Prehistoric Archaeological Site Types by Natural Region

Natural Region Typical Prehistoric Archaeological Site Types 

Central Great 

Plains/High Plains 

Paleoindian and Archaic lithic scatters, lithic procurement sites, rock shelters, open 

camps, and mammoth or bison kill sites; Archaic and Late Prehistoric lithic scatters, 

lithic procurement sites, open camps, rock shelters, and bison kill or hunting sites; 

Late Prehistoric lithic scatters, open camps, workshops, and plains villages.

Cross Timbers and 

Blackland Prairie 

Paleoindian lithic scatters, open camps, and bison kill or processing sites; Archaic, 

Plains Woodland, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric lithic scatters, lithic 

procurement sites, open camps, burned rock middens, rock shelters, bison kill or 

hunting sites; Archaic and Late Prehistoric cemeteries and open camps, including 

Caddo open camps, hamlets, villages, and cemeteries.

Edwards Plateau Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric lithic scatters, open camps, lithic procurements 

sites, rock shelters, and burned rock middens.

Gulf Coast Prairies Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric lithic scatters, open camps, lithic procurement sites,

and burned rock middens; Archaic to historic cemeteries, open camps, and shell 

middens.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-2

Natural Region Typical Prehistoric Archaeological Site Types 

South Texas Plains 

and Coastal Sand 

Plains 

Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric lithic scatters, shell middens, and open camps; Archaic to 

historic Indian lithic scatters, lithic procurement sites, shell middens, open camps, lithic 

procurement sites, and cemeteries.

Source: Perttula (2004).

Each natural region is described below for each of the three geographic sections.

4.2.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

4.2.1.1 Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Oklahoma/Texas Border 

Central and south-central Oklahoma compose the southern extension of the Osage Savanna or 

Great Plains. This mix of scrub forest uplands and mixed prairie grasslands, interspersed with 

meadows and heavily wooded stream valleys, has a greater diversity of bedrock and topography 

than found to the north (Drass and Martin 2010). The EIS Study Area is characterized north to 

south by the hills and rolling uplands of Permian or Pennsylvania sandstone and shale; the folded 

remnants of the Arbuckle Mountains; and sands, clays, and limestone deposited by Cretaceous 

streams and seas (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). This transitional or ecotonal zone, between the 

eastern woodlands and mixed grass prairies farther to the west, supported diverse plant and 

animal communities available to the prehistoric peoples of south-central Oklahoma. The native 

vegetation in south-central Oklahoma and north-central Texas is known as the Cross Timbers.

4.2.1.2 Oklahoma Cultural Background 

The overview of prehistoric south-central Oklahoma is derived mainly from the cultural history 

prepared by Wyckoff and Brooks (1983). Additionally, the culture history provided below draws 

heavily on available summaries of the region, particularly those prepared by Drass and Martin 

(2010), Drass and Clanahan (2008), and Brooks and Bowman (2005).

In contrast to other areas of Oklahoma, fewer archaeological investigations have been conducted in 

the south-central part of the state, and these have generally been limited in scope. This may have a 

direct correlation with the low number of documented archaeological sites in this portion of the 

state. The earliest investigations were conducted by H. R. Antle. Between 1930 and 1942, Antle 

excavated two prehistoric villages and a rock shelter, tested an open camp, and reported 

pictographs, unusual artifacts, and site locations (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Between 1937 and 

1942, Works Progress Administration funds supported the University of Oklahoma’s archaeological

excavations at numerous endangered sites. These included two major Plains Village settlements 

eroding into the Washita River (the Grant [34GV1] and Braden [34GV2] sites), a prehistoric 

ceremonial center near the North Canadian River (the Eufaula or Groseclose Mound [34MI145]), 

and three prehistoric sites and four 19th-century Chickasaw farmsteads later flooded by Lake 

Texoma (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-3

The era of reservoir development, beginning after World War II, resulted in numerous 

archaeological surveys and excavations. Within the general EIS Study Area, investigations were 

conducted at the Norman (later renamed Thunderbird) Reservoir (1955), Lake of the Arbuckles 

(1964), Arcadia Reservoir (1973), and the Seaward Reservoir in the 1980s (OAS 2014; THC 2014). 

Numerous sites were studied prior to their inundation; Archaic, Woodland, and Plains Village 

middens were sampled at Lake Texoma, and a large Woodland period settlement was excavated at 

the Lake of the Arbuckles. During this same period, investigations were conducted by the University 

of Oklahoma faculty and students, East Central State College, Oklahoma Geological Survey 

members, and the Highway Salvage Project archaeologists. Investigations were conducted at a 

Woodland hamlet (Brewer site [34ML3]), Plains Village settlements (Lee I [34GV3] and Lee II 

[34GV4] sites), a burned Woodland period house containing burials (Pickett Switch site [34PN1]), 

flint workshops and outcrops, a Plains Village Cemetery (Nagle site [34OK4]), an Archaic open 

camp (Evers site [state trinomial not available]), and a Plains Village (Montgomery site [state 

trinomial not available]) (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983).

Following the establishment of legislation to preserve significant cultural resources (NHPA of 1966 

and NEPA in 1969) including archaeological sites, archaeological investigations increased 

significantly to fulfill environmental assessment requirements related to federally funded, licensed, 

or permitted projects with the potential to have an effect on significant cultural resources. Surveys 

related to utility corridors (water lines, natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines) and 

transportation construction projects resulted in a better understanding of the types and numbers of 

archaeological sites, as well as insight into site settings and diverse habitats. The first evidence of a 

Caddoan village settlement in the general EIS Study Area was found by ODOT during excavations at 

the Plantation Site [state trinomial not available] in McIntosh County. Numerous upland hunting 

camps and lithic workshops, rock shelters, open camps, and prehistoric farmsteads were 

documented during surveys for the Soil Conservation Service impoundments projects. In addition, 

the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, OAS, and Oklahoma River Basin Survey archaeologists 

tested and excavated significant sites within the EIS Study Area. These include an 8,000-year-old 

open camp in Love County, a stratified Archaic-Woodland camp in Seminole County, a Plains Village 

camp in Murray County, and a 12th-century burned house in Garvin County (Wyckoff and Brooks 

1983).

4.2.1.2.1 Paleoindian Period 

The Paleoindian period is generally associated with high mobility; distinctive lanceolate, unnotched 

fluted dart points; and the hunting of extinct Pleistocene mammals, including Columbian mammoth 

(Mammuthus columbi), bison (Bison antiquus), camel (Camelops sp.), and horse (Equus). The 

earliest well-documented evidence of the first peopling of North America is the Clovis culture; it has 

been well documented across the continent (Drass and Clanahan 2008). Although the conventional 

view shows the Clovis people arriving about 12,000 years before the present (BP, meaning AD

1950), there is debate among archaeologists regarding the earliest peopling of North America. The 

bones of a Columbian mammoth found at the Cooperton site (state trinomial not available) in 

Kiowa County were radiocarbon dated from 21,000 to 17,000 BP. The cultural association has 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-4

been questioned at this site and other early sites considered pre-Clovis (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983); 

more research is needed to definitively document pre-Clovis occupations.

According to Wyckoff and Brooks (1983), the Paleoindian period in Oklahoma generally dates from 

approximately 17,000 to 9000 BP; it can be divided into the Early Paleoindian period 

(approximately 17,000 to 10,000 BP: pre-Clovis, Clovis, Hell Gap, and Folsom complexes) and the 

Late Paleoindian period (approximately 10,000 to 9000 BP: Plainview, Plano, Milnesand, and 

Portales complexes). Typical for many parts of Oklahoma and Texas, the Paleoindian record for 

south-central Oklahoma derives mainly from surface contexts or mixed with later cultural materials 

(Hofman 1989; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). However, an Imperial mammoth (Mammuthus 

imperator) was found in clear association with three Clovis type dart points at the Domebo site 

(34CD50) in Caddo County; it was radiocarbon dated to approximately 11,800 BP. The typical tool 

kit includes the distinctive fluted Clovis dart point and associated hunting-related tools (flake 

scraper/graver, flake shaft plane, wedge shaped flake knife, and a pebble scraper).

Toward the end of the Pleistocene, changing climate and possibly human hunting pressure caused 

the abrupt extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna with the exception of Bison antiquus. This 

change is evident in the faunal assemblages of three Folsom complex kill and camp sites (Cooper 

[34HP45], Jake Bluff [34HP60], and Waugh [34HP42] sites) in northwestern Oklahoma dating 

around 11,000 BP (Drass and Clanahan 2008). Folsom groups primarily hunted Bison antiquus; 

their lithic assemblage included distinctive fluted Folsom dart points and unfluted lanceolate dart 

points along with tools oriented toward hunting-related tasks.

Late Paleoindian (approximately 10,000 to 9000 BP) people of the Plainview, Plano, Milnesand, 

and Portales complexes were hunter and gatherers who tracked bison over great distances 

exploiting diverse plants and animals (Drass and Clanahan 2008; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). 

Suggesting population increase, sites and artifacts associated with this period are more numerous 

than in previous periods. The tool assemblages included grinding stones, knives and scrapers, and 

distinctive unfluted dart points, such as Plainview, Merserve, Milnesand, Golondrina, Angostura, 

Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Eden, Cody, and Scottsbluff. Two sites dating to this period were recorded 

near the EIS Study Area; these include a Plainview bison kill site (Perry Ranch [34JK81]) and a late 

Paleoindian or Early Archaic open camp/workshop (Pumpkin Creek [34LV49]).

4.2.1.2.2 Archaic Period 

Few discrete Archaic period (approximately 9000 to 2000 BP) sites have been investigated in 

south-central Oklahoma (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983); however, the period is generally associated 

with the warm, dry Hypsithermal period that led to the extinction of large Pleistocene animals 

(Drass and Clanahan 2008). Because of these changing climatic conditions, new technologies and 

subsistence evolved as people became more dependent on hunting smaller game and gathering 

plants. The period is commonly divided into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic (Wyckoff and Brooks 

1983) and is characterized by diversified hunting and gathering groups living in larger groups and 

maintaining seasonal rounds of camps.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-5

Early and Middle Archaic (approximately 9000 to 4000 BP) sites are particularly scarce (Drass and 

Clanahan 2008). The Gore Pit site (34CM131) is the best documented Early Archaic site 

(approximately 6000 BP) in the region; emergency salvage work at this open camp recovered 

numerous features such as burned rock roasting ovens, shell middens, hearths, and one of the 

oldest human burials in Oklahoma (Drass and Clanahan 2008; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). 

Diagnostic tools include side and corner notched dart points (Trinity, Ensor, Darl, Ellis, and Frio) and 

triangular Meserve dart points. The material assemblage from Early Archaic sites includes grinding 

basins, manos, scrapers, Clear Fork gouges, drills, knives, flake scrapers, hammerstones, bone 

awls, and bird bone beads. Local Ogallala quartzite dominates the lithic raw material type; however, 

some materials came from areas to the west and northeast. Faunal remains at Early Archaic sites 

indicate a diversification in resources that included small mammals, turtles, frogs, fish, and 

mussels. Best known and studied of the known Middle Archaic (approximately 7000 to 4050 BP) 

complexes (Drass and Clanahan 2008) is the Calf Creek horizon with sites across all of Oklahoma 

(Brooks and Bowman 2005; Drass and Clanahan 2008; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Although there 

is considerable diversity in settlements, Calf Creek sites are generally found on terraces or uplands 

overlooking rivers or streams. The site type includes open camps, bison kill sites, and lithic 

procurement sites. Distinctive lithic tools and the deep basal notched Calf Creek dart points are 

often associated with hearths, burned rock ovens, extensive lithic debitage, and bison and deer 

bones. The Kubik site (34KA354), a Middle Archaic site in Kay County, was radiocarbon dated from 

approximately 5300 to 6000 BP. The material assemblage includes bison and deer bone, Calf 

Creek dart points, and an abundance of lithic debitage along with intact hearths and burned rock 

roasting ovens (Brooks and Bowman 2005; Drass and Clanahan 2008). Adjacent to the EIS Study 

Area, Calf Creek has been documented in good context at the Hester/Adams site (34ML83). 

Another nearby Middle Archaic complex has been documented in northern Oklahoma; however, 

little information is available for the McKean complex.

The Late Archaic (approximately 4000 to 2000 BP) is better represented throughout Oklahoma. The 

climate became wetter after 4500 BP; the favorable conditions lead to larger and more numerous 

settlements that were more permanently built (Brooks and Bowman 2005). With larger populations, 

access to resources would have become more restricted leading to conflicts, exchange and trade of 

goods, and likely plant horticulture. In addition, the archaeological record during the Late Archaic 

and subsequent Woodland period describes formal and ritual burial treatments; near the EIS Study 

Area, three individuals with grave goods were found at the Late Archaic Bross site (34OK7) in 

central Oklahoma (Brooks and Bowman 2005).

The Late Archaic tool kit is similar to those from earlier Archaic period sites, although there is a 

notable increase of groundstone tools and specialized objects, such as bone and shell ornaments. 

The material assemblages include grinding stones and basins, handstones, knives, scrapers, bone 

tools (primarily awls and flakers), and ceramics (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). Diagnostic dart points 

include corner notched, weakly barbed dart points (Marcos or Ellis, Palmillas or Williams, and 

Ensor) and contracting stem dart points (primarily Gary). Burned rock middens, hearths, and 

roasting ovens are common in Late Archaic open camps/hamlets with large communal bison kill 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-6

sites farther west and dispersed local societies relying on local plant and animal species in the 

central EIS Study Area (Brooks and Bowman 2005).

4.2.1.2.3 Woodland Period 

The Woodland period (approximately 2000 to 1000 BP) is marked by the introduction of the bow 

and arrow, ceramic manufacturing, and farming tools (Drass and Clanahan 2008; Wyckoff and 

Brooks 1983). Hunting and gathering practices and the use of Late Archaic tools (see above) 

continued; however, through intensified gathering and horticulture, groups became more 

sedentary. The typical Woodland assemblage includes corner notched arrow points (Scallorn, 

Deadman), unifacial and bifacial flaked tools, cordmarked ceramics tempered with crushed stone, 

horticulture (charred corn), and early farming tools (hoes, axes, and adzes) along with hearths and 

roasting ovens. Woodland sites are sparse near the EIS Study Area; however, Woodland dated sites 

have been documented farther east and in the divide between the Washita and Red Rivers. Sites 

have been recorded as small open camps, workshops, and small farmsteads and attest to 

prolonged or semi-sedentary occupations (Drass and Clanahan 2008).

The introduction of farming may represent the immigration of ideas or farmers from the northeast 

and southeast or a natural development from horticulture by native hunters and gatherers. Sites 

containing smoothed flat bottom ceramics and lithic artifacts indicative of early Caddoan villages, 

located farther east, may represent trade items or Caddoan hunting camps. According to Wyckoff 

and Brooks (1983), a burned house from the Pickett Switch site (34PN1) resembles those common 

to Caddoan sites between 1150 and 1000 BP. Far to the northwest of the EIS Study Area, the Lake 

Creek and Palo Duro complexes developed in the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles; the associated 

cultural assemblages are similar to those in the EIS Study Area with the exception of Mogollon 

brownware ceramics and, in some cases, Mogollon-style pit houses (Drass and Clanahan 2008).

4.2.1.2.4 Late Prehistoric (Village Farming) Period 

The Late Prehistoric period (approximately 1000 to 500 BP) is marked by significant changes in 

technology, settlement, and subsistence (Drass and Clanahan 2008; Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). 

Although scattered small settlements existed prior to 950 BP, settlements increased in size and 

density along stretches of river valleys and major streams; likely due to increased rainfall on the 

Southern Plains (Wyckoff and Brooks 1983). The most studied period villages near the EIS Study 

Area include Alcorn (34ML1), Brewer (34ML3), Willingham (34ML5), and Duke (34ML37) (Brooks 

and Bowman 2005). Characteristics of this period include the intensification of horticulture, 

exclusive adaptation of the bow and arrow, proliferation of ceramics, extensive use of bison bone 

for agricultural tools, widespread use of storage pits, the use of permanent houses and larger 

settlements, and trade items from the Southwest and Caddoan areas to the east. Additionally, 

horses were used late in the period. The following three period phases have been defined within 

the EIS Study Area: the Paoli phase (1050 to 550 BP), the overlapping Washita River phase, and 

the Henrietta phase (750 to 500 BP).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-7

The Paoli phase is characterized by settlement marked by small hamlets and villages along the 

Washita River with permanent wattle and daub rectangular houses with central hearths, storage 

pits, and hearths. Evidence of horticulture (corn, probably beans, and marshelder), gathering of wild 

plants and nuts, fishing, and hunting (primarily deer supplemented with small mammals, fish, and 

mussels) are common. Bison hunting was more common later in this phase. Diagnostic arrow 

points include side and corner notched Washita and Harrell with minor numbers of unnotched 

Fresno. Cordmarked ceramics dominate the assemblages of this phase with minor amounts of grit 

tempered plain ceramics. The typical Paoli phase assemblage also includes plano convex end 

scrapers, bifacial knives, abraders, manos, metates, bone awls and tools, and minor amounts of 

nonlocal lithic materials (Drass and Clanahan 2008).

The Washita River phase exhibits similarities to the Paoli phase as small and medium mammals 

and the gathering of wild plants remained important resources; however, subsistence emphasized 

bison hunting and the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash. Villages were more abundant and 

slightly larger than earlier villages and included nearby burials and distinct cemeteries. Smoothed 

ceramics were more common, a larger variety of temper was used, and some wares were 

decorated. Paoli phase lithics continued to be used; however, diamond-beveled knives used to 

butcher bison became more abundant and the variety of bone tools increased. Exotic cherts and 

ceramics and seashell ornaments are indicative of widespread trade with Southern Plains farmers 

(Drass and Clanahan 2008).

The Henrietta phase is in north-central Texas and south-central Oklahoma; most of the investigated 

sites in Oklahoma are situated along the Red River and its tributaries (Drass and Martin 2010). 

Villages, small camps, and bison kill sites are found on terraces and uplands near major streams 

along the Red River Valley. The Henrietta phase resembled the preceding Washita River phase with 

slight variations; these included oval house shapes with center posts, more stemmed arrow points 

such as Albas, use of local cherts and quartzites as well as exotic Edwards chert and Alibates 

agate, a greater variety of tools (hoes and digging sticks) used in plant cultivation, and an increased 

hunting of deer over bison and increased importance of fish and mussels (Drass and Martin 2010).

4.2.1.2.5 Protohistoric Period 

Few Protohistoric period (approximately 450 to 150 BP or AD 1500 to 1800) sites have been 

identified in south-central Oklahoma. At the time of historic contact, the Wichita (descendants of 

Plains Villagers) and the Caddo lived in south-central Oklahoma. The Lowrance site (34MR10) is 

located near the EIS Study Area and has been associated with the Wheeler phase, which is thought 

to be ancestral to the historic Wichita (Drass and Clanahan 2008). Wheeler phase sites include 

large villages with houses and arbors and large encampments with fortifications. Bison hunting was 

emphasized and corn cultivation has been documented. Nonlocal pots, lithics, and shell items 

indicate intensified trade with Southwestern and Caddo groups. Typical Wheeler phase 

assemblages include unnotched (Fresno) and side notched (Washita and Harrell) arrow points with 

minor numbers of basal notched Garza arrow points, black sandy paste ceramics, diamond-beveled 

knives, expanding base drills, pipe reamers, large scrapers, and nonlocal chert including Alibates 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-8

and Edwards. The ceramic assemblages include plain or grog tempered ceramics and 

Southwestern and Caddoan ceramics (Drass and Clanahan 2008). Although some groups formed 

large seasonal to permanent villages, others maintained portable dwellings and moved with the 

bison herds.

Displaced native groups emigrating from the Southern Plains along with the arrival of Europeans 

dramatically altered native lifeways in Oklahoma. At the Lowrance site (34MR10), an Apache 

presence is represented in the material culture with intrusive black ceramics and obsidian tools. By 

AD 1719, the Wichita, Comanche, and Apache had been reported in the general area; pressure 

from outside native groups and Europeans changed societal dynamics (Brooks and Bowman 2005). 

European trade goods, including horses and firearms, as well as the introduction of new diseases,

brought about systematic changes to village lifestyle, hunting, and warfare; entire villages were 

decimated. The majority of Protohistoric period investigations within 250 years of European contact 

have been conducted far from the EIS Study Area in western Oklahoma (Brooks and Bowman 

2005). Many groups including the Wichita, who are well represented in south-central Oklahoma

archaeological studies, returned to a nomadic way of life. This left large portions of south-central 

Oklahoma abandoned, contributing to the expansion of the French, Spanish, and American traders 

and explorers into the area. By AD 1830, the passage of the Indian Removal Act resulted in the 

removal of specific Native American tribes from the southeastern United States to Indian 

reservations in Oklahoma. Because of the continued expansion of settlers, establishment of military 

and trading posts, and the decimation of buffalo herds by white hunters, most of the Native Indians 

moved to reservations. The EIS Study Area became a buffer between Plains tribes and scattered, 

struggling communities of resettled Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole.

4.2.1.3 Oklahoma Border to Dallas and Fort Worth 

North and north-central Texas compose two distinct ecoregions: the Cross Timbers to the west, 

which includes Fort Worth, and the Texas Blackland Prairies, which includes Dallas. The Cross 

Timbers region is a transitional area between the once prairie regions to the west and the forested 

low mountains or hills of eastern Oklahoma and Texas. It is a mosaic of forest, woodland, 

savannah, and prairie. The Texas Blackland Prairies region extends from near Oklahoma to the 

north and Dallas to the northeast to San Antonio. It is a true tall grass prairie characterized by 

gently rolling to nearly level topography with forest along streams and uplands (Kenmotsu and 

Perttula 1993; Prikryl 1993). These habitats historically supported a rich mixture of diverse plant 

and animal communities available to the prehistoric peoples of north and north-central Texas.

4.2.1.4 Texas Cultural Background 

The overview of prehistoric north Texas is derived mainly from the cultural history prepared by 

Prikryl (1990, 1993) for investigations conducted throughout north and northeast Texas. 

Additionally, the below culture history draws heavily on three available synthesis/summaries of the 

region: Story’s (1990) synthesis of upper Trinity River basin archaeological data, Lynott’s (1981)
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-9

work in the Cross Timbers and Blackland Prairie of north Texas, and Hofman’s (1989) summary of 

southern Great Plains archeology.

The earliest investigations in Texas were carried out by E. B. Sayles (1935) in the 1920s and 

1930s; he conducted a state-wide reconnaissance and published the first synthesis of Texas 

prehistory in 1935. In An Archaeological Survey of Texas, Sayles compared archaeological sites 

across the state and defined prehistoric culture and their boundaries. The next significant overview 

of Texas archaeology was An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology (Suhm et al. 1954).

The era of reservoir development in north Texas emphasized the Trinity River drainages, resulting in 

numerous archaeological investigations prior to their inundation. Several large projects took place 

along the Trinity River’s East Fork at Lake Lavon (1950, 1973, 1975) and Lake Ray Hubbard 

(1963, 1968); these investigations afforded significant contributions to our understanding of 

prehistory in the region (THC 2014). Investigations along other parts of the Trinity River basin have 

focused on the upper Elm Fork of the river in the Denton area; these include Ray Roberts Reservoir 

(1987, 1997, 1987, 1982), Lewisville Lake (1950, 1991, 1998), and Grapevine Lake (1975) (THC 

2014). Large-scale research along the West Fork of the Trinity River has been primarily limited to 

Mountain Creek Lake (1988) (THC 2014).

Following the establishment of federal laws and state regulations to preserve significant cultural 

resources (principally the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and the Antiquities Code of Texas, as 

amended), archaeological investigations increased significantly to fulfill environmental assessment 

requirements related to federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects and state owned lands. 

Additionally, the Dallas Archeological Society and Texas Archeological Society have produced 

articles and journals (The Record and Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society [BTAS],

respectively) resulting in good data. The Texas Archeological Society has conducted annual field 

schools since 1962 as well as recording thousands of archaeological sites over the years. More 

than 70 years of research has been published in the BTAS documenting the prehistory and early 

history of Texas.

4.2.1.4.1 Paleoindian Period 

The Paleoindian period represents the first known human occupation of the north-central Texas 

region (at least 12,000 to 8500 BP) (Bousman et al. 2004; Perttula 2004; Prikryl 1990) and shares 

its general summary with those presented above under the Oklahoma Cultural Background 

subheading. These sites are associated with high mobility; distinctive lanceolate, unnotched fluted 

dart points; and the hunting of extinct Pleistocene mammals.

Few Paleoindian sites have been intensively investigated in north-central Texas, and most data for 

these sites come from investigations along the Trinity River, especially the Lower Elm Fork (Prikryl 

1990). These data are often limited to isolated lithic tools, but discrete components, particularly 

those associated with Clovis occupations, have been identified at the Lewisville (41DN72) and 

Aubrey (41DN479) sites, two deeply buried sites (up to 26 feet of Holocene alluvium) in Denton 

County (Prikryl 1993; Story 1990). These sites feature the main hallmarks of early Paleoindian sites 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-10

in Texas such as Clovis dart points and the remains of large mammals; in contrast, many 

Paleoindian sites across the state harbor medium and small faunal remains, including mammals, 

reptiles, and fish, which may constitute a testament to a broad-spectrum subsistence strategy (Witt 

2005).

Toward the end of the Pleistocene, changing climate and possibly human hunting pressure caused 

the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna with the exception of Bison antiquus. This change is 

evident in the faunal assemblages of Folsom and Plainview sites at Blackwater Draw and Lubbock 

Lake (Johnson and Holliday 1980). Folsom groups primarily hunted Bison antiquus; their lithic 

assemblage included distinctive fluted Folsom dart points and unfluted lanceolate dart points along 

with tools oriented toward hunting-related tasks.

Late Paleoindian (approximately 10,000 to 9000 BP) people of the Plainview, Plano, Milnesand, 

and Portales complexes were hunter and gatherers who tracked bison over great distances 

exploiting diverse plants and animals (Hofman 1989; Prikryl 1990).

4.2.1.4.2 Archaic Period 

The Archaic period in north-central Texas extended from approximately 8500 to 1250 BP with 

roughly three 2,400-year periods regarded as early, middle, and late sub-divisions (Prikryl 1990). 

Prikryl (1990) suggests that diagnostic artifacts associated with the Early Archaic consist of splitstem varieties, while the Middle Archaic is represented by basal-notched types such as Bell, Andice, 

Carrollton, and Bulverde. Late Archaic dart points include the Castroville, Marshall, Edgewood, 

Elam, Trinity, and Gary types (Prikryl 1990). Unfortunately, few discrete Archaic occupations have 

been analyzed in north-central Texas, but the Archaic record may reflect a slowly increasing 

population responding to warmer and drier climatic conditions (Lynott 1981). As such, Archaic 

groups in the Cross Timbers and prairies of the region may have developed diversified hunting and 

gathering patterns focused on bottomland resources of rivers and major creeks (Hofman 1989). 

Two Late Archaic occupations were examined near the EIS Study Area at Mountain Creek Lake and 

Ray Roberts Reservoir that indicate repeated occupations by small groups.

In north-central Texas, the Late Archaic (and subsequent Late Prehistoric) archaeological record 

commonly describes human burials, several of which are associated with Wylie pit features. Such 

pit features are large (approximately 52.5 feet in diameter and 6.5 to 13 feet deep) man-made 

depressions originally identified during investigations along the East Fork Trinity River and a 

hallmark of the Wylie focus (Stephenson 1952) initially dated to the Late Prehistoric. The Wylie pit 

features were likely used for large-scale food processing similar to the burned rock middens of 

central Texas. Later investigations at the Richland-Chambers Reservoir indicated that Wylie pit 

feature extend back to the Late Archaic and functioned in large-scale processing of subsistence 

resources (Bruseth and Martin 1987). Taken together, the burials and pit features suggest group 

aggregations and large-scale processing of food resources during the Late Archaic and extending 

into the Late Prehistoric.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-11

4.2.1.4.3 Late Prehistoric Period 

Prikryl (1993) divides the Late Prehistoric period into Late Prehistoric I (approximately 1250 to 750 

BP) and Late Prehistoric II (approximately 750 to 250 BP) subdivisions based on projectile point 

and ceramic types. Temporally diagnostic arrow points from the Late Prehistoric I subperiod include 

Scallorn, Catahoula, Steiner, Alba, and Bonham. Diagnostic ceramics primarily consist of grog 

tempered undecorated varieties. However, influence from Caddo ceramics of East Texas is noted in 

similar designs.

During the Late Prehistoric II subdivisions, the archaeological record for the region exhibits 

influences from southern Plains groups, which correspond to an increase in the size of the northcentral Texas bison herd. At this same time, however, increased population is thought to have 

limited hunting ranges and resulted in the gradual trend toward horticulture and sedentary village 

life (Harris and Harris 1970; Morris and Morris 1970). Plains-influenced material culture (Prikryl 

1990) included calcareous-tempered ceramics and unstemmed triangular arrow points like Maud, 

Fresno, Harrell, Washita, and Perdiz. Also typical are thumbnail scrapers and two- and four-beveled 

knives (i.e., Harahey). Evidence of horticulture is evidenced in bison scapula hoes, such as those 

found during investigations for the Lewisville Lake and Lavon Lake in Denton and Collin Counties, 

respectively (Barber 1969).

The Plains influences in the north-central Texas region assisted with the development of the 

Henrietta complex. The site type for the complex is the M. D. Harrell site discovered on the Brazos 

River in Young County. This site and associated sites (often on sandy elevated landforms and 

terraces above river valleys) contain middens, house structures, rock hearths, storage pits, and 

burials (Brooks 1989). Excavated Henrietta complex sites include the Coyote and Glass sites in 

Montague County.

With the arrival of the 18th century, Plains groups had moved into and beyond north-central Texas 

and were documented by traders and explorers, thereby heralding the beginning of the Historic 

period. During this time, documented groups in and around the region included Tonkawa, Apache, 

Comanche, Wichita, Caddo, Delaware, and Kickapoo (Newcomb 1961; Newcomb and Campbell 

1982). Sites attributed to this period contain European ceramics, glass beads, flintlock musket 

fragments, and metal arrow points in conjunction with chipped lithic tools. Few known sites can be 

definitively associated with these historic groups, though a Wichita site was investigated in Hill 

County.

4.2.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Central Section extends from Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio. Given the large geographic 

area encompassed by this section, there is overlap in the northern reaches of the Central Section 

with the culture history of north-central Texas and, as such, the cultural history will not be repeated 

here. Similarly, the southern reaches of the Central Section overlap with prehistoric culture areas 

and chronologies associated with south Texas, which are discussed in Section 4.2.3, San Antonio to 

South Texas (Southern Section).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-12

From synthesized interpretations of archaeological research in the region (Black 1989; Collins 

1995; Prewitt 1981), the prehistoric cultures of central Texas were organized into small bands and, 

for the most part, practiced hunter gatherer subsistence up to Historic times. These ancient 

peoples are now only represented by the refuse they left behind, which includes lithic tools, flaking 

debris from lithic tool production, burned rock from hearth/cooking features, and disarticulated and 

fractured animal bone.

Distinctive artifact styles such as lithic arrow and dart points are often used as relative 

chronological indicators. Typological frameworks established by Kelley (1947) and Suhm et al. 

(1954) are based on specimens recovered from hundreds of excavated sites throughout Texas and 

the United States. These stylistically diverse diagnostic types are often used as temporal and 

cultural markers and have been the basis for establishing a Central Texas archaeological

chronology (Collins 1995; Prewitt 1981). Arguing that stylistic variability in diagnostic artifact forms 

is in itself insufficient to distinguish cultural change, recent refinement by Johnson and Goode 

(1994) used radiocarbon dating to account for paleoclimatic influences to refine the central Texas 

archaeological chronology.

The culture history of central Texas has been divided into four general periods: Paleoindian, 

Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Historic (Collins 1995; Johnson and Goode 1994; Prewitt 1981; 

Suhm et al. 1954). These periods are divided into subperiods based on changes in the 

archaeological and paleoenvironmental record.

4.2.2.1 Paleoindian Period 

The Paleoindian period represents the first known human occupation of the area and generally 

dates from approximately 11,500 to 8800 BP (Collins 1995). However, aboriginal peoples likely 

lived in central Texas much earlier as evidenced by pre-Clovis findings at the Levi rock shelter 

(Collins 1995) and Gault site followed by Clovis culture (12,800 to 13,100 BP). During the terminal 

Pleistocene, the Paleoindian period is noted for its association with the hunting of megafauna and 

high mobility. However, recent inquiries into Paleoindian subsistence have revealed greater reliance 

on small-game and plant resources (Meltzer and Bever 1995). This period is divided into two 

subperiods: Early Paleoindian and Late Paleoindian.

The Early Paleoindian period in central Texas dates from approximately 11,500 to 9500 BP (Collins 

1995). This subperiod of prehistory is represented by three general cultural traditions defined by 

subsistence and tool technology: Clovis, Folsom, and Plainview. 

The Clovis culture is the first well-documented, large-scale intrusion of people to enter North 

America. Named after the famous site on Blackwater Draw near Clovis, N.M., the Clovis 

technological complex is represented archaeologically by distinctive fluted dart points and 

association with extinct Pleistocene mammals including mammoth, bison, camel, and Pleistocene 

horse. Though Clovis materials are found over a wide range of North America, there is a paucity of 

Clovis sites having materials in situ with stratigraphic integrity.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-13

Toward the end of the Pleistocene, changing climate and possibly human hunting pressure caused 

the abrupt extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna with the exception of Bison antiquus. This 

change is evident in the faunal assemblages of Folsom and Plainview complex sites including 

Blackwater Draw (Hester 1972), Lubbock Lake (Johnson and Holliday 1980), and Wilson Leonard 

(Collins 1998). Mesic conditions and vast Great Plains grasslands supported an abundance of the 

now-extinct form of bison. It appears Folsom and Plainview peoples tracked bison over great 

distances as evidenced by lithic sourcing and technological organization. The Plainview bison 

kill/butchering component at the Lubbock Lake Site (41LU1) is radiocarbon dated as being postFolsom at 9900 BP (Johnson and Holliday 1980).

Late Paleoindian sites and associated artifacts are dated from 9500 to 8800 BP. This subperiod is 

marked by changes in site frequency and artifact density with these sites being more numerous 

and containing higher artifact densities. Diagnostic tool types associated with the Late Paleoindian 

subperiod have been recovered at sites across the Edwards Plateau and include Scottsbluff, 

Wilson, San Patrice, Big Sandy, St. Mary’s Hall, Barber, and Golondrina (Collins 1995). Though the

San Patrice and Big Sandy types are more common in the southeastern United States, these types 

along the eastern plateau margin represent the western extent of those technological traditions 

(Patterson 1989).

4.2.2.2 Archaic Period 

The Archaic period, which dates from 8800 to 1200 BP, is the longest of the defined cultural 

periods and composes two-thirds of central Texas prehistory. This period, which represents a 

central Texas adaptation, is divided into three subperiods: Early, Middle, and Late Archaic. Marked 

changes in the material culture of the Archaic from the Paleoindian period include burned rock 

middens and ground stone indicative of a shift toward more intensified use of local flora and fauna 

(Collins 1995). The majority of the Archaic is marked by a prolonged drought that ended by the Late 

Archaic subperiod with a change to a more mesic climate.

The Early Archaic period dates from approximately 8800 to 6000 BP. This subperiod is represented 

by four diagnostic tool traditions: Angostura, Gower, Uvalde, and Martindale. From data on Early 

Archaic site distribution, it appears that these sites occur with greater frequency along the eastern 

margin of the plateau (Collins 1995). With more reliable water resources along the escarpment 

(Comal, San Marcos, and Barton Springs), the eastern plateau and its many springs may have 

proved more hospitable during these dryer times.

The Middle Archaic subperiod dates from 6000 to 4000 BP and is represented by numerous 

diagnostic dart points including Andice, Bell, Early Triangular, Nolan, and Travis. The Middle Archaic 

coincides with the onset of a xeric climatic interval that has been referred to as the Middle 

Holocene Altithermal. This middle Holocene climatic interval is marked by extensive erosion or 

limited alluvial deposition. Erosion destroyed many of the Middle Archaic sites that would have 

formed on stream terraces. Surface stability allowed the other stream terraces to accumulate 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-14

cultural debris into aggregates or palimpsests representing centuries or even millennia of 

occupation (Collins 1995; Holliday 1999).

The Late Archaic subperiod dates from 4000 to 1200 BP and is represented by a wide variety of 

diagnostic dart points including Bulverde, Pedernales, Castorville, Fairland, Frio, Ensor, and Darl

(Collins 1995). The Late Archaic shows a shift to a mesic climatic interval and the resumption of 

aggradation of many stream terraces. Increased distribution and density of Late Archaic sites in 

central Texas may be attributed to population growth resulting from an increased resource base 

associated with increased precipitation.

4.2.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period 

The Late Prehistoric period spans 1200 to 500 BP and is represented by several notable 

technological changes, including the introduction of the bow and arrow and ceramics. The climate 

shifted again to a xeric interval that increased in intensity throughout the period. In central Texas, 

two subperiods (or phases) are recognized: Austin and Toyah. These subperiods are based on 

changes in artifact assemblages and subsistence practices (Collins 1995; Prewitt 1981).

The Austin subperiod dates from approximately 1400 to 800 BP and is represented by Edwards 

and Scallorn arrow points. Austin-phase materials found in association with burned rock middens 

are not uncommon, suggesting similar subsistence practices to earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers 

(Collins 1995).

The Toyah subperiod, which dates from approximately 800 to 500 BP, is represented by plainware 

ceramics and Perdiz arrow points. A shift toward bison hunting is apparent with increased bison 

remains present in Toyah sites (Collins 1995). Lithic tools such as thin beveled bifaces and end 

scrapers are also present in Toyah sites (Prewitt 1981).

4.2.2.4 Protohistoric Period 

The Protohistoric period has been posited for the transitional period from the Late Prehistoric to the 

Historic period. This transition is poorly documented and is marked by the end of the Toyah Phase, 

roughly AD 1250/1300 to 1600/1650 (Hester 1995), and the appearance of Spanish explorers in 

the area in the early 16th century. Following the establishment of a strong Spanish presence in the 

region in the late 1600s and early 1700s, sporadic encounters occurred between indigenous 

populations and Europeans. Archaeologically, the transitional period is difficult to discern in the 

absence of artifacts clearly Spanish in origin, as Protohistoric sites tend to have both Late 

Prehistoric and Historic artifacts.

4.2.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section encompasses parts of the South Texas Plains and the Gulf Coast Prairies

cultural region, which is close to the extent of Blair’s (1950) Tamaulipan Biotic Province. It is a 

transitional zone between a temperate zone to the north, a xeric zone to the west, and a subtropical 

zone to the south with a reduced mix of woodland, desert, and subtropical species. The Coastal 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-15

Sand Plains are to the north, the South Texas Brush Country is to the south, and the Gulf Coast 

Plains are to the east; it has scattered to thick patches of low lying brush intermixed with isolated 

stands, or single trees, of mesquite or huisache. Overall, the region is one of the most poorly known 

in Texas, and the Rio Grande plain itself is one of the least known of the subregions.

The earliest synthesis of the South Texas region’s archaeology was attempted by Sayles (1935), 

who defined several cultural complexes along the Texas coast that indicated extensive campsites 

inland. Later, Kelley (1947) defined the Monte aspect in this region, and MacNeish (1947, 1958) 

included some parts of Texas along the lower Rio Grande in his archaeological survey of 

Tamaulipas, creating the Brownsville, Abasolo, and Repelo cultural complexes.

Suhm et al. (1954) summarized the archaeology of this region, incorporating newly collected data 

from the Falcon Reservoir survey and excavations. Two new foci were defined consisting of the 

Falcon focus and Mier focus. The Falcon focus represented the Archaic of the region, while the Mier 

focus, with smaller dart points and arrow points, was considered later in time. The prehistoric 

cultures of south Texas and its subareas have been most recently synthesized by Hester (1989,

1995) and Black (1989); the following brief summary draws mostly from those sources. The 

cultural periods are Paleoindian (11,200 to 8000 BP), Early Archaic (8000 to 4500 BP), Middle 

Archaic (4500 to 2400 BP), Late Archaic (2400 to 1200 BP), and Late Prehistoric (1200 to 400 BP) 

(Black 1989).

4.2.3.1 Paleoindian Period 

The earliest evidence of the human presence in south Texas dates to the Paleoindian period 

(approximately 11,200 to 8000 BP). This period originally included the earliest inhabitants of the 

New World who spread across the American continent in the waning years of the Pleistocene era. 

Possible pre-Clovis finds in both North and South America may significantly refine the chronology of 

New World occupation, but the finds are still sporadic and not universally accepted. In any case, the 

evidence for such early cultures has not been forthcoming in Texas.

Paleoindian cultures are typically identified by their distinctive lithic technology, including well-made 

dart points such as Clovis, Folsom, and Plainview and a wide range of related lanceolate forms. 

Other diagnostic technologies include large polyhedral blade cores and prismatic blades associated 

with the Clovis techno-cultural complex and large bifacial cores and ultra-thin bifaces associated 

with the Folsom techno-cultural complex. Throughout the South Texas Plains area, most of these 

artifacts are scattered surface finds rather than recovered from buried stratified sites. Data from 

the broader area comprising southern, southwest, and central Texas indicate that primary site types 

from this period include open sites and rock shelters with evidence of general occupation along 

with specialized activities such as lithic tool making, hunting, and game processing. Lithic artifact 

caches and human burials have also been found that date to the Paleoindian era. In the past, the 

Paleoindian peoples have typically been characterized as a nomadic, big-game hunting culture, but 

evidence in nearby regions from sites such as Baker Cave suggests a broader range of subsistence 

activities within a rich and complex cultural tradition (Hester 1983).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-16

Overall, the Paleoindian era is one that is marked by a gradual warming trend at the close of the 

final Pleistocene Wisconsonian glaciation. This warming trend is associated with a dramatically 

shifting faunal and floral environment, to which the cultural traditions quickly adapted.

4.2.3.2 Archaic Period 

The transition from Paleoindian to the Early Archaic (approximately 8000 to 1200 BP) is difficult to 

define precisely, but the Archaic dart points begin to shift from lanceolate forms to stemmed points, 

though some later lanceolate forms such as Golondrina and Angostura may persist longer. 

Unfortunately, beyond a few excavated sites, subsistence data are scarce for sites of this period. 

Early Archaic sites are known throughout the area, though few have been excavated, and there are 

little data on such sites in the Rio Grande Plain subregion (Black 1989). Sites are found on high 

terraces and in the uplands, but buried alluvial sites have also been identified. As with the 

Paleoindian period, the widespread distribution of artifact types and low site counts suggest a small 

population, small band sizes, and large territorial ranges, though as Story (1990) and Black (1989) 

have argued, these generalizations probably apply to a wide area of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. 

Regional themes in the Archaic period include the emergence of a triangular tool-type tradition 

including the widespread use of distally beveled tools and the development of subregionalized and 

sometimes intrusive, but poorly understood, mortuary complexes.

Despite its later date, the Middle Archaic of the South Texas Plains is little better known than its 

Early Archaic and Paleoindian antecedents. Hampered by the paucity of excavated sites and the 

near absence of radiocarbon dates, much must be inferred by comparisons with adjacent regions 

(Black 1989). By the Middle Archaic, groundstone, including manos and metates, occurs at a 

number of sites, perhaps indicating a greater reliance on plant materials than during previous 

periods and methods of food processing. Unifacial, distally beveled tools also continue, while 

triangular dart points characterize the diagnostic points of this period. Stemmed points are also 

present (Hester 1995). The persistent Clear Fork tool type continues in both bifacial and unifacial 

forms, though much smaller than its earlier cousins (Turner and Hester 1999). Sites have been 

identified in the uplands as well as alluvial settings and along estuary bays in the Coastal Bend. 

Chronologically diagnostic artifact scatters appear for the first time in the Rio Grande delta during 

this period (Black 1989). Middle and Late Archaic sites occur on terraces, arroyo banks, and in hilly 

areas overlooking arroyos and their tributaries. The presence of burned rock accumulations is

indicative of a greater reliance on plant materials, and population densities may have increased 

during this period along with more-defined territories.

Late Archaic sites in south Texas are numerous, and this period is better known than its 

predecessors. During this time, plant and marine resources probably took on a greater role than 

hunting of large mammals. In fact, resource specialization may have reached a peak during the 

Late Archaic, followed by a somewhat more generalized subsistence in the subsequent Late 

Prehistoric period (Black 1989). A further increase in population is implied by the increase in site 

density during this period. Regional distinctions in artifact assemblages and other cultural traits 

also become prominent at this time.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-17

4.2.3.3 Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Period 

The final prehistoric period, the Late Prehistoric (approximately 1200 to 400 BP), is well 

represented in south Texas. This period is marked by the introduction of new technologies, 

including the bow and arrow and ceramics, as well as potentially new adaptive strategies. Site types 

are varied and include open campsites, lithic scatters, and cemeteries. Site types indicate local 

lithic styles and intrusions from adjacent areas. Local ceramic styles are infrequent if non-existent 

unless associated with assemblages also occurring in other regions. At the southernmost tip of the 

culture area, the Brownsville complex is noted for its shell-working industry and influences from 

groups along the Mexican coast. Two subperiods that have been defined for this period in central 

Texas also have relevance to the Late Prehistoric of the South Texas Plains. The earliest part of this 

period, the Austin subperiod (beginning about 1300 to 1200 BP), reflects a certain degree of 

cultural and economic continuity underlying the adoption of new technologies, while the later Toyah 

subperiod (extending roughly to the beginning of the historic era) may indicate the introduction of 

immigrants following a southward extension of the range of the bison. Throughout most of the 

state, there is an intensification of animal exploitation as evidenced by the faunal remains that 

occur during the Late Prehistoric period, particularly during the Toyah Phase.

The transition to the Protohistoric/Historic period reflects catastrophic replacement of indigenous 

groups. Little is known of the fate of the prehistoric inhabitants of south Texas during this period. 

Though a number of small groups have been documented in the early historic era of south, southcentral, and coastal Texas, most disappeared quickly from the written records. In south Texas, 

Campbell (1958) documented the available evidence of the numerous Native American bands that 

roamed this region in the early historic era. With increasing Anglo settlement in south Texas in the 

early to mid-19th century as well as antagonistic official policies and continuous onslaughts of 

epidemic diseases, Native American populations began to dwindle. While the Comanches and a few 

other groups were able to maintain social cohesion, most groups were eliminated or lost their 

individual identities as the survivors merged with isolated survivors from other bands. Remnants of 

bands from the Plains and from across the continent, including Kickapoo, Seminole, and others, 

ranged across northern Mexico and southern Texas seeking refuge from annihilation.

4.3 Archaeological Sites 

Archaeological sites identified within the EIS Study Area include open camps, villages, lithic 

scatters, fire-cracked rock features, and lithic quarries/workshops that have been dated throughout 

the prehistoric period. Structural ruins and archaeological deposits associated with farmsteads, 

wells, railroad bridges, wagon trails, acequias (irrigation canals), military roads, a naval air station, 

and two cemeteries identified within the EIS Study Area have been dated to the historic period. 

Both cemeteries are within the Central Section of the EIS Study Area; interments at one cemetery 

date between AD 1860 and 1954, and the exact age of the other was not verified.

Based on data provided by the THC/Texas SHPO and Oklahoma SHPO, the following three 

categories of archaeological sites are within the EIS Study Area: archaeological sites listed on the 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-18

NRHP, archaeological sites determined NRHP-eligible by the Texas or Oklahoma SHPO, and 

archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility. As previously stated, archaeological sites 

with undetermined NRHP eligibility have not yet been sufficiently assessed; therefore, for this 

service-level analysis, these sites are treated as NRHP-eligible sites because final eligibility 

determinations have not been made by the Texas or Oklahoma SHPO. A complete list of identified 

NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, and undetermined NRHP-eligible archaeological sites is provided in 

Tables 4-2 through 4-5. 

The Northern Section crosses through Oklahoma (Table 4-2) and Texas (Table 4-3); the Central 

Section (Table 4-4) and Southern Section (Table 4-5) are entirely situated within Texas. Figure 4-1 is 

an index map, and the locations of archaeological sites are shown on Figures 4-2 through 4-13.

Archaeological sites that have been determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP have not been 

included in this service-level analysis.

Table 4-2: Archaeological Sites in Oklahoma—Northern Section (presented north to 

south and west to east)

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/ Recommendations Alternative 

34OK63 

Figure 4-2 

Prehistoric open camp; 

possibly Archaic period

Undetermined Further work needed N4A CONV

34OK99 

Figure 4-2 

Late Prehistoric period 

open camp

Undetermined NRHP testing needed N4A CONV

34CL179 

Figure 4-2 

Norman Historic Naval Air 

Station/archaeological

deposits

NRHP-eligible Further NRHP assessment 

needed

N4A CONV

34CL57 

Figure 4-2 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined Two site plots, one within 

the EIS Study Area, need 

further assessment

N4A CONV

34GV291 

Figure 4-2 

Archaic period prehistoric 

open camp

Undetermined Site may extend east of 

railroad

N4A CONV

34GV295 

Figure 4-2 

Plains Village prehistoric 

open camp

Undetermined Investigation of subsurface 

needed

N4A CONV

34GV136 

Figure 4-2 

Washita River Phase 

prehistoric village

Undetermined Investigation of subsurface 

needed

N4A CONV

34MR110 

Figure 4-3 

Prehistoric open camp 

and historic farmstead

Undetermined Site inventory and full 

recording needed

N4A CONV

34LV27 

Figure 4-3 

Archaic period prehistoric 

open camp

Undetermined None N4A CONV

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014); OAS (2014).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-19

Table 4-3: Archaeological Sites in Texas—Northern Section (presented north to south 

and west to east) 

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41TR235 a 

Figure 4-4 

1890s Historic 

Railroad Roundhouse

Undetermined; 

demolished 

structure ineligible

Possible associated buried 

artifacts

N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR,

C4A HSR, 

C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, 

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR226 a 

Figure 4-4 

Historic Walker Branch 

Railroad Bridge

Undetermined; 

railroad bridgeineligible, cleared in 

past

Possible associated buried 

artifacts

N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR70 a 

Figure 4-4 

Early Archaic through 

Late Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR140 a 

Figure 4-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined None N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR3 a 

Figure 4-4 

Paleoindian period 

dart points, no 

additional data

available

Undetermined None N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL54 a 

Figure 4-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined Investigation of the

subsurface and site inventory

needed; two possible site 

locations, one within the EIS 

Study Area

N4A CONV, 

C4A HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

a Site is also in the Central Section.

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014); OAS (2014).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-20

Table 4-4: Archaeological Sites—Central Section (presented north to south, and west 

to east)

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41TR235 a 

Figure 4-4 

1890s Historic 

Railroad Roundhouse

Undetermined; 

demolished 

structure 

ineligible

Possible associated buried 

artifacts

N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, C4A HSR, 

C4B HrSR, C4B 

HSR,

C4C HrSR, C4C 

HSR

41TR226 a 

Figure 4-4 

Historic Walker 

Branch Railroad 

Bridge

Undetermined; 

railroad 

bridgeineligible, 

cleared in past

Possible associated buried 

artifacts

N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR70 a 

Figure 4-4 

Early Archaic through 

Late Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, C4A HSR, 

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR140 a 

Figure 4-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined None N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TR3 a 

Figure 4-4 

Paleoindian period 

dart points, no 

additional data

Undetermined None N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL54 a 

Figure 4-4 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined Investigation of the

subsurface and site 

inventory needed; two 

possible site locations, one 

within the EIS Study Area

N4A CONV, C4A 

HrSR, 

C4A HSR,

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL51 

Figure 4-4 

Caddoan period 

prehistoric open camp

Undetermined None C4B HrSR, C4B 

HSR

41TR48 

Figure 4-4 

1890-1940 Historic 

Mars Tenant Farm

NRHP-eligible None C4B HrSR, C4B 

HSR
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-21

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41TR244 

Figure 4-4 

Late 19th century

historic farmstead 

with features

Undetermined; 

small portion 

ineligible

None C4B HrSR, C4B 

HSR

41DL355 

Figure 4-4 

No data available Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL356 

Figure 4-4 

Late Prehistoric period 

open camp with 

features

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL273 

Figure 4-4 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and historic 

debris

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41DL277 

Figure 4-4 

Historic wagon trail Undetermined Unlikely intact, later paved C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41HI255 

Figure 4-5 

1890s historic 

recreational facility

Undetermined Most structures destroyed; 

associated features intact

C4C HrSR,

C4C HSR

41ML96 

Figure 4-5 

Prehistoric open camp 

and 1890s historic 

structure

Undetermined 

(contractor 

recommended 

eligible)

Good to excellent intact buried 

deposits

C4A HrSR, C4A

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41WM22 

Figure 4-6 

Lithic and fire-cracked 

rock scatter

Undetermined Partly destroyed by highway, 

flooding, and illegal dumping

C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41WM159 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric quarry and 

workshop

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-22

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41WM958 

Figure 4-6 

Late Prehistoric/NeoAmerican period 

campsite

Undetermined Extensive site size, full 

boundary unknown

C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR,

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV1344 

Cemetery 

No. TVC058 

Figure 4-6 

Rose Hill Cemetery Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV1221 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric open 

camp, Paleoindian –

Late Prehistoric 

periods

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR, C4C HSR

41TV1366 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric open camp 

with historic house 

debris

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV1262 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter with tools

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV1266 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter and 

procurement site

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV1267 

Figure 4-6 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter

Undetermined Site may not be intact C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-23

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41TV1642 

Figure 4-6 

Historic 20th century

house

Undetermined Further work needed C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41TV285 

Figure 4-6 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open camp

Undetermined, 

ineligible 

within 

previous 

survey 

boundary

Deeply buried with clusters of 

intact hearths

C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41GU130 

Figure 4-7 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter

Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41BX910 

Figure 4-7 

Prehistoric open camp Undetermined None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

BX-C084 

(Cemetery 

No.) 

Schulmeier 

Cemetery 

Figure 4-7 

1860-1954 historic 

Schaefer/Schulmeier 

Family Cemetery, 

perimeter cast iron 

fence, granite 

gravestones, and 

landscaping

Undetermined Preservation in place 

recommended

C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

41BX620 

Figure 4-7 

Alazan acequia 

associated with San 

Pedro Springs

NRHP-eligible None C4A HrSR, C4A 

HSR, C4B HrSR, 

C4B HSR, C4C 

HrSR,

C4C HSR

a Site is also in the Northern Section.

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-24

Table 4-5: Archaeological Sites—Southern Section (Alternatives S4 and S6 presented

north to south and west to east)

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41FR94 

Figure 4-8 

Prehistoric open 

camp, possibly 

Early Archaic 

period

Undetermined; 

ineligible within 

the previous 

survey boundary

Not investigated beyond the 

pipeline boundary, but likely 

disturbed by plowing

S6 HrSR, 

S6 HSR

41DM95 

Figure 4-9 

Middle to 

Transitional 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined High research potential, 

testing recommended

S6 HrSR, S6 HSR

41DM99 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined High research potential S6 HrSR, S6 HSR

41DM112 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined High research potential S6 HrSR, S6 HSR

41WB726 

Figure 4-9 

Early-Mid 20th

century historic 

homestead, 

windmill, artifact 

scatter

Undetermined None S6 HrSR, S6 HSR

41WB343 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended S6 HrSR, S6 HSR

41WB205 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric lithic 

scatter with tools, 

debitage, tested 

cobbles, cores, 

and biface 

fragments

Undetermined:

prehistoric 

component; 

ineligible: 

historic 

component 

None S6 HrSR,

S6 HSR

41BX629 

Figure 4-8 

Prehistoric open 

camp and early 

20th century 

historic residence

NRHP-eligible 

(prehistoric 

component); 

State Antiquities 

Landmark

Boundary and depth have only 

been estimated

S4 HrSR

41AT19 

Figure 4-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41AT20 

Figure 4-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41LK83 

Figure 4-10 

Paleoindian 

through Late 

Prehistoric period 

open camp

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41LK84 

Figure 4-10 

Archaic period 

prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended S4 HrSR
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-25

Site 

Trinomial Description NRHP Status Notes/Recommendations Alternative 

41LK339 

Figure 4-10 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined The site may be deeply buried S4 HrSR

41WB774 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined The site may be partially 

destroyed

S4 HrSR

41WB380 

Figure 4-9 

No data available Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41WB443 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined Possible buried intact 

deposits

S4 HrSR

41WB449 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined NRHP testing recommended S4 HrSR

41WB452 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined Possible buried intact 

deposits

S4 HrSR

41WB450 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined Intact buried deposits, NRHP

testing recommended

S4 HrSR

41WB448 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined One buried occupation S4 HrSR

41WB463 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41WB687 

Figure 4-9 

Prehistoric open 

camp

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41DV134 

Figure 4-11 

Prehistoric quarry 

with lithic tools

Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41JW1 

Figure 4-12 

No data available Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41BK5 

Figure 4-12 

Historic early 20th

century Trosada 

Well and Ruins

Undetermined Possible station for steam 

train; archival research and

NRHP testing recommended

S4 HrSR

41CF208 

Figure 4-13 

Historic Old 

Military Road’

Undetermined Good research potential; most 

of the road has been paved

S4 HrSR

41NU12 

Figure 4-12 

No data available Undetermined None S4 HrSR

41NU73 

Figure 4-12 

No data available Undetermined None S4 HrSR

Sources: THC (2014); University of Texas (2014).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-26

Figure 4-1: Index Map
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-27

Figure 4-2: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 1
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-28

Figure 4-3: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 2
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-29

Figure 4-4: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 3
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-30

Figure 4-5: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 4
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-31

Figure 4-6: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 5
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-32

Figure 4-7: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 6
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-33

Figure 4-8: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 7
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-34

Figure 4-9: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 8
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-35

Figure 4-10: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 9
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-36

Figure 4-11: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 10
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-37

Figure 4-12: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 11
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 4-38

Figure 4-13: Archaeological Cultural Resources within the EIS Study Area – Map 12
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-1

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

This section analyzes the potential effects on archaeological sites identified within the EIS Study 

Area. All alternatives, except for the No Build Alternative, have potential to affect archaeological

sites.

The archaeological sites are presented by geologic section (Northern, Central, and Southern) in 

Table 5-1 and by alternative in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-1: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Geographic Section 

Section NRHPListed

NRHPEligibleNRHP Eligibility 

Undetermined Total Sites 

Northern 0 1 14 15 a 

Central 0 2 28 30 a 

Southern 0 1 27 28 

Total Sites by NRHP 

Eligibility

0 4 69 a 73 

a Includes six sites represented twice on overlapping Northern and Central sections.

Table 5-2: Summary of Archaeological Sites by Alternative

Alternative

Total 

NRHPListed 

Sites

Total 

NRHPEligible 

Sites

Total NRHP 

Eligibility 

Undetermined

Total Sites 

No Build NA NA NA 0 

N4A CONV 0 1 14 15 

C4A HrSR and C4A HSR 0 1 25 26 

C4B HrSR and C4B HSR 0 2 18 20 

C4C HrSR and C4C HSR  0 1 26 27 

S4 HrSR 0 1 20 21 

S6 HrSR and S6 HSR  0 NA 7 7 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-2

The number of identified archaeological historic properties does not reflect the significance of 

archaeological sites nor a comprehensive number of known or unknown resources present within 

each section. The greatest densities of sites occur where intensive archaeological investigations 

have been conducted; these include developed areas associated with urban expansion, utility, 

energy, and transportation projects, as well as park and recreational development and expansion.

Archaeological sites are often associated with rivers, streams, and primary drainages and 

tributaries, as well as existing and former roads and paths; prior to reservoir inundation, intensive 

investigations of these high-probability areas resulted in the recording of large clusters of 

archaeological sites. Other site types, such as lithic procurement sites and seasonal camps,

generally occur farther away from these waterways. Specific areas of high sensitivity (highprobability areas for containing significant archaeological sites) were not identified in during this 

service-level analysis; areas of high sensitivity would be further refined and assessed during 

project-level analyses.

The intensity of an effect as a result of the route alternatives are characterized are negligible, 

moderate, or substantial compared to the No Build Alternative. Because this analysis did not 

include ground surveys, the presence of archaeological resources is only an indication of the types 

of resources that might be present. Additionally, effects on archaeological resources cannot be 

valued by the number of sites affected. Therefore, determination of effects for this service-level 

analysis is largely the professional judgement based on the probability to affect archaeological 

sites. In relation to archaeological sites, these terms are defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects are those that would result in low likelihood of disturbing new areas 

by improving existing railroad infrastructure.

 Moderate intensity effects are those where ground disturbance is minimal and have a low 

probability of containing archaeological resources. For instance, there would be a moderate 

intensity of effects where the alignment would be placed on fill rather than depressing the 

alignment or there are areas of low probability of archaeological resources.

 Substantial intensity effects are those where ground disturbance is deep and occur in areas 

with a high likelihood archaeological resources present. For example, this may occur for 

roadway undercrossings and pier structure foundations.

The following analysis presents anticipated construction effects in urban, suburban, and rural 

settings for each alternative and associated stations. Operational phases would not disturb 

archaeological sites except that the program alternatives may influences additional development 

activities. To address these potential effects, site-specific review of indirect and cumulative effects 

would be included during the project-level analysis. These actions are not covered in this analysis 

and therefore operational effects are not discussed further. 

For this service-level analysis, each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative—even 

when overlapping other alternatives. Each alternative has termini within large cities, and each route 

has independent utility. Each alternative could be constructed alone or in combination with other 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-3

alternatives. In addition, multiple alternatives could be constructed within each region because 

each alternative provides separate service type options.

The discussion of effects below reflects a high-level analysis for the previously documented and 

registered archaeological sites identified within the EIS Study Area. Additional archaeological sites

would likely be identified at the project level when a detailed field survey and site evaluations would 

be conducted. Most archaeological sites would likely be avoided and/or further assessed at the 

project level.

5.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative is used as a basis for comparison with the build alternatives. The No Build 

Alternative would not implement the Program of rail improvements associated with this servicelevel evaluation and would not meet the purpose and need of the Program; therefore, the No Build 

Alternative would not affect archaeological sites. However, the No Build Alternative does not meet 

the purpose and need for the Program. Without the Program, the opportunity to concentrate growth 

and development at central urban districts may not be as attractive because continued growth 

would worsen travel and accessibility. This could lead to other more land-consuming transportation 

infrastructure, thus disturbing more land area and potentially affecting more archaeological sites. 

5.2 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

In the Northern Section, only one alternative and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. Alternative N4A Conventional would follow the same general alignment within 

Dallas and Fort Worth as several of the alternatives in the Central Section. As a result, six

archaeological sites are within both the Northern and Central Sections. These archaeological sites

in the overlapping sections are identified in Table 4-3 and are illustrated on Figure 4-4. 

5.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional Rail 

Data collection revealed one NRHP-eligible archaeological site and 14 archaeological sites with

undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for Alternative N4A Conventional (see Table 

5-2). The 15 archaeological sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Tables 4-2 and 4-3 for specific data regarding individual 

archaeological sites). Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level 

analysis; however, as detailed in Section 4, areas located along major streams and rivers may 

require further investigations to identify significant archaeological sites.

During construction, Alternative N4A Conventional would likely have a negligible effect on urban, 

suburban, and rural archaeological sites as it would likely utilize an existing railroad infrastructure. 

However, if built parallel and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new rightsof-way and easements would be required, resulting in potential moderate effects on archaeological

sites. Expansion of existing stations and construction of new stations within urban, suburban, and 

rural areas would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, 

construction activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-4

and staging areas, would potentially cause moderate effects on archaeological sites compared to 

the No Build Alternative.

The 15 archaeological sites previously recorded in the Alternative N4A Conventional Rail corridor

may have been affected by previous development; therefore, field investigations may be necessary 

to further assess their degree of integrity and significance. Additional archaeological sites identified 

during the project-level analysis would also require significance assessments. Effects on significant 

archaeological sites would be minimized and avoided, if possible, during construction. Minimization 

and avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be 

developed at the project level.

5.3 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, six alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for further 

evaluation. Several of the alternatives in the Central Section would follow the same general 

alignment as Alternative N4A Conventional. As stated above, six archaeological sites are within both 

the Northern and Central Sections. These overlapping archaeological sites are identified in Table 4-

4 and are illustrated on Figure 4-4. 

Four of the alternatives in the Central Section (Alternative C4A [both service types] and Alternative 

C4B [both service types]) follow the same alignment from Hillsboro to San Antonio (see Figures 1-1 

and 4-4 through 4-7). Because effects on archaeological sites occur primarily during construction 

and differ only slightly by service type (high-speed and higher-speed rail) based on use of existing 

versus new right-of-way, the effects for these four alternatives are the same between Hillsboro and 

San Antonio.

5.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

Data collection revealed one NRHP-eligible site and 25 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility 

within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 26

archaeological sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Table 4-4 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites).

Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level analysis; however, as 

detailed in Section 4, areas specifically located along major streams and rivers may require further 

investigations to identify significant archaeological sites.

Within Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, the densest concentration of previously recorded

archaeological sites is largely within Dallas and Fort Worth; this site concentration is likely a result 

of intensive archaeological investigations associated with large-scale development projects. In 

these areas, the alternative would likely be located within existing railroad right-of-way, and new 

construction would likely be directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks. If built parallel 

and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new rights-of-way and easements 

would be required, resulting in potentially moderate effects on archaeological sites as compared to 

the No Build Alternative. Expansion of existing stations and construction of new stations within 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-5

urban, suburban, and rural areas would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. 

In addition, construction activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, 

parking facilities, and staging areas, would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological

sites. 

The 26 archaeological sites previously recorded in the Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail corridor

may have been affected by previous development; therefore, field investigations may be necessary 

to further assess their degree of integrity and significance. Additional archaeological sites identified 

during the project-level analysis would also require significance assessments. Effects on significant 

archaeological sites would be minimized or avoided, if possible, during construction.

In areas where new location alignments may be necessary, the potential for effects on significant 

archaeological sites is high. Minimization of effects on or avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural 

archaeological historic properties would likely be conducted at the project level. 

5.3.2 Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail,

and therefore it would potentially affect the same resources. Data collection revealed one NRHPeligible site and 25 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 26 archaeological sites are considered to have 

moderate to high potential for significant archaeological deposits (see Table 4-4 for specific data 

regarding individual archaeological sites). Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified

during this service-level analysis; however, areas specifically located along major streams and 

rivers may require further investigation to identify significant archaeological sites.

In major urban areas such as Fort Worth, Dallas, and San Antonio, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

facilities would be on a new alignment. Because dense development in these areas may limit the 

ability to avoid effects on archaeological sites at the project level, the potential for effects on such 

sites is considered moderate for these areas. Likewise, new station facilities and construction 

activities in urban areas, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, 

and staging areas, would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological sites based on the 

same potential limitations.

In suburban areas, effects on archaeological sites would be moderate during construction because 

a new alignment and stations would be required. However, suburban areas typically feature more 

open space than dense urban environments, which may enable more flexibility to minimize or 

avoid, if possible, effects on archaeological historic properties at the project level.

High-speed rail service requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural 

support or deep excavation. These have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply buried 

archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. Conversely, the elevated portions of 

the trackway may be able to span archaeological historic properties. Minimization of effects on or 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-6

avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be 

conducted at the project level wherever possible. 

5.3.3 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

Data collection revealed two NRHP-eligible sites and 18 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility 

within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 20 previously 

recorded archaeological sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Table 4-4 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites). 

Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during at this service-level analysis; however, as 

detailed in Section 4, areas specifically located along major streams and rivers may require further 

investigations to identify significant archaeological sites.

Within Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, the densest concentration of archaeological sites is 

largely within Dallas and Fort Worth; this site concentration is likely a result of intensive 

archaeological investigations associated with large-scale development projects. In these areas, the

alternative may be located within existing railroad right-of-way, and new construction would likely be 

directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks resulting in moderate effects on 

archaeological sites. If built parallel and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal 

new rights-of-way and easements would be required, potentially resulting in moderate effects on 

archaeological sites. Expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban, suburban, and 

rural areas would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, 

construction activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, 

and staging areas, would cause moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. 

The 20 previously recorded archaeological sites may have been affected by previous development; 

therefore, field investigations may be necessary to further assess their degree of integrity and 

significance. Additional archaeological sites identified during the project-level analysis would also 

require significance assessments. Effects on significant archaeological sites would be minimized or 

avoided, if possible, during construction.

In areas where new location alignments may be necessary, the potential for effects on significant 

archaeological sites is high. Minimization or avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological

historic properties would likely be conducted at the project level. 

5.3.4 Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail,

and therefore it would potentially affect the same resources. Data collection revealed two NRHPeligible sites and 18 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 20 archaeological sites within this alternative

are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant archaeological deposits (see Table 

4-4 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites). Specific areas of high sensitivity 

were not identified during this service-level analysis; however, as detailed in Section 4, areas 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-7

located along major streams and rivers may require survey to identify significant archaeological

sites.

In major urban areas such as Fort Worth, Dallas, Waxahachie, Waco, Temple, Austin, and San 

Antonio, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail facilities would be on a new alignment. Because dense 

development in these areas may limit the ability to avoid effects on archaeological sites at the 

project level, the potential for effects on such sites is considered moderate for these areas. 

Likewise, new station facilities and construction activities in urban areas, including vehicular and 

heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas, would result in moderate 

potential effects on archaeological sites based on the same potential limitations.

Unlike the higher-speed rail option, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail is limited in its flexibility to 

avoid and minimize effects on archaeological sites because of design constraints (e.g., curve radii 

must be a minimum of 5 miles in diameter). Therefore, effects on archaeological historic properties, 

if present, may be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid or minimize and would potentially be 

substantial.

High-speed rail service requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural 

support or deep excavation. These have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply buried 

archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. Conversely, the elevated portions of 

the trackway may be able to span archaeological historic properties. Minimization of effects on or 

avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be 

conducted at the project level wherever possible. 

5.3.5 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

Data collection revealed one NRHP-eligible site and 26 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility 

within the EIS Study Area for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 27

archaeological sites within this alternative are considered to have moderate to high potential for 

significant archaeological deposits (see Table 4-4 for specific data regarding individual 

archaeological sites). Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level 

analysis; however, as detailed in Section 4, areas specifically located along major streams and 

rivers may require further investigations to identify significant archaeological sites.

Within Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, the densest concentration of archaeological sites is 

largely within Dallas and Fort Worth; this site concentration is likely a result of intensive 

archaeological investigations associated with large-scale development projects. In these areas, the 

alternative may be located within existing railroad right-of-way and directly adjacent to existing 

railroad facilities and tracks resulting in moderate effects on archaeological resources. If built 

parallel and adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new rights-of-way and 

easements would be required, resulting in potential moderate effects on archaeological sites. 

Expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban, suburban, and rural areas would 

result in moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, construction activities, 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-8

including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas,

would result in moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. 

The 27 previously recorded archaeological sites in the EIS Study Area may have been affected by 

previous development; therefore, field investigations may be necessary to further assess their 

degree of integrity and significance. Additional archaeological sites identified during the projectlevel analysis would also require significance assessments. Effects on significant archaeological

sites would be minimized or avoided, if possible, during construction.

In areas where new location alignments may be necessary, the potential for effects on significant 

archaeological sites is high. Minimization of effects on or avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural 

archaeological historic properties would likely be conducted at the project level.

5.3.6 Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail,

and therefore it would potentially affect the same resources. Data collection revealed one NRHPeligible site and 26 sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study Area for

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The 27 previously recorded archaeological sites 

within this alternative are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Table 4-4 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites).

Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level analysis; however, as 

detailed in Section 4, areas located along major streams and rivers may require survey to identify 

significant archaeological sites.

In major urban areas such as Fort Worth, Dallas, Waxahachie, Waco, Temple, Austin, and San 

Antonio, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail facilities would be on new alignment. Because dense 

development in these areas may limit the ability to avoid effects on archaeological sites at the 

project level, the potential for effects on such sites is considered substantial for these areas. 

Likewise, new station facilities and construction activities in urban areas, including vehicular and 

heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas, would result in substantial 

potential effects on archaeological sites based on the same potential limitations.

In suburban areas, effects on archaeological sites are anticipated to be moderate to substantial 

during construction because a new alignment and stations would be required. However, suburban 

areas typically feature more open space than dense urban environments, which may enable more 

flexibility to minimize or avoid, if possible, effects on archaeological historic properties at the project 

level.

High-speed rail service requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural 

support or deep excavation. These have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply buried 

archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. Conversely, the elevated portions of 

the trackway may be able to span archaeological historic properties. Minimization or avoidance of 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-9

urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be conducted at the 

project level wherever possible. 

5.4 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In the Southern Section, three alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail serves different destinations than Alternative 

S6 (both service types). Alternative S6 (both service types) would follow an alignment that does not 

follow existing transportation corridors and is considerably shorter than Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail. Alternative S6 (both service types) has relatively few previously identified 

archaeological sites compared to Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. The following discusses the 

effects of these three alternatives on archaeological resources.

5.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Data collection revealed 1 NRHP-eligible archaeological site and 20 sites with undetermined NRHP

eligibility previously recorded within the EIS Study Area for Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail (see 

Table 5-2). The 21 previously recorded archaeological sites within this alternative are considered to 

have moderate to high potential for significant archaeological deposits (see Table 4-5 for specific 

data regarding individual archaeological sites). Almost half of these sites are at the terminus of the 

western branch in eastern Laredo and appear to have intact buried deposits; therefore, these sites 

may require NRHP-eligibility testing to determine their significance. Additionally, as detailed in 

Section 4, high-probability areas (areas located along major streams and rivers) may require further 

investigations to identify significant archaeological sites.

Within Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, the densest concentration of archaeological sites is largely 

within Laredo; this site concentration is likely a result of intensive archaeological investigations 

associated with large-scale development projects. In these areas, the alternative may be located 

within the existing railroad right-of-way and directly adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks,

and therefore, avoidance design refinement may result in moderate effects. If built parallel and 

adjacent to existing railroad facilities and tracks, minimal new rights-of-way and easements would 

be required, resulting in potential moderate effects on archaeological sites as compared with the 

No Build Alternative. Expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban, suburban, and 

rural areas would result in moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, 

construction activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, 

and staging areas, would potentially result in moderate effects on archaeological sites. 

The 21 previously identified archaeological sites may have been affected by previous development; 

therefore, field investigations may be necessary to further assess their degree of integrity and 

significance. Additional archaeological sites identified during the project-level analysis would also 

require significance assessments. Effects on significant archaeological sites would be minimized or 

avoided, if possible, during construction.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-10

In areas where new location alignments may be necessary, the potential for effects on significant 

archaeological sites is high. Minimization of effects on or avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural 

archaeological sites would likely be conducted at the project level.

5.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

Data collection revealed seven archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the 

EIS Study Area for Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The seven archaeological sites 

within this alternative are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Table 4-5 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites). 

Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level analysis; however, as 

detailed in Section 4, areas specifically located along major streams and rivers may require further 

investigation to identify significant archaeological sites.

During construction, Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would likely have similar effects on 

archaeological sites as the other higher-speed rail options. Although a limited number of 

archaeological sites were previously identified within Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, this likely 

reflects the limited number of archaeological investigations within this area. The alternative may be 

located within existing railroad right-of-way, when possible, and directly adjacent to existing railroad 

facilities and tracks. However, this is a small area of the alignment, and therefore it is more likely 

that new rights-of-way and easements would be required, resulting in potential moderate effects on 

archaeological sites. Expansion of existing stations and new stations within urban, suburban, and 

rural areas would result in moderate potential effects on archaeological sites. In addition, 

construction activities, including vehicular and heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, 

and staging areas, would potentially result in moderate effects on archaeological sites.

The seven previously recorded archaeological sites may have been affected by previous 

development; therefore, field investigations may be necessary to further assess their degree of 

integrity and significance. Additional archaeological sites identified during the project-level analysis 

would also require significance assessments. Effects on significant archaeological sites would be 

minimized or avoided, if possible, during construction. Minimization of effects on or avoidance of 

urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be conducted at the 

project level.

5.4.3 Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail has the same EIS Study Area as Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail,

and therefore it would potentially affect the same resources. Data collection revealed seven 

previously recorded archaeological sites with undetermined NRHP eligibility within the EIS Study 

Area for Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail (see Table 5-2). The seven previously recorded 

archaeological sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for significant 

archaeological deposits (see Table 4-5 for specific data regarding individual archaeological sites).

Specific areas of high sensitivity were not identified during this service-level analysis; however, as 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 5-11

detailed in Section 4, areas specifically located along major streams and rivers may require further 

investigation to identify significant archaeological sites.

In urban areas, Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail facilities would be on a new alignment. Because 

dense development in these areas may limit the ability to avoid effects on archaeological sites at 

the project level, the potential for effects on such sites is considered moderate for these areas. 

Likewise, new station facilities and construction activities in urban areas, including vehicular and 

heavy equipment access/egress, parking facilities, and staging areas, would result in moderate 

potential effects on archaeological sites based on the same potential limitations.

Although high-speed rail construction requires large horizontal curves, which makes avoidance of 

individual archaeological sites more difficult in urban areas, the availability of large swaths of 

undeveloped land in rural areas allow the possibility for avoidance or archaeological historic 

properties at the project level. Therefore, effects on archaeological sites in rural areas of Alternative

S6 High-Speed Rail are anticipated to be moderate during construction.

High-speed rail service requires crossings to be grade-separated, which would require structural 

support or deep excavation. These have potential to result in substantial effects on deeply buried 

archaeological sites within urban, suburban, and rural settings. Conversely, the elevated portions of 

the trackway may be able to span archaeological historic properties. Minimization of effects on or 

avoidance of urban, suburban, and rural archaeological historic properties would likely be 

conducted at the project level wherever possible. 

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 6-1

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Mitigation strategies are conceptual measures that are often developed in the early stages during 

of a project but may be applied at various stages of design development. During the project-level 

analysis, avoidance and minimization of potential impacts on archaeological historic resources 

would be conducted prior to mitigation. Mitigation strategies enable project planners to examine

appropriate methods to avoid or minimize potential impacts on archaeological historic properties

and may result in agreements, such as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Program Agreement 

executed among agencies. An MOA would be coordinated with both Texas and Oklahoma SHPOs, 

Native American tribes, and other interested parties as appropriate. A project-level Program 

Agreement would be coordinated with FRA, TxDOT, ODOT, and Texas and Oklahoma SHPOs. Other

agreement documents that could constitute mitigation strategies include an Archaeological Sites 

Monitoring and Treatment Plan or an Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) that would guide 

archaeological monitoring work during construction. These agreements would likely propose that if

significant archaeological sites are inadvertently discovered during construction in any portion of 

the project area, ground-disturbing activities would be halted and the procedures of the UDP would 

be followed.

Mitigation measures for archaeological historic properties would be further developed in 

consultation with Texas and Oklahoma SHPOs and in consultation with Native American Indian 

tribes during project-level analyses once an archaeological site has been determined eligible for the 

NRHP. Project-level review would include a more detailed analysis of potentially moderate or 

substantial impacts and mitigation measures to reduce such effects. For actions that would result

in moderate or substantial effects on archaeological historic properties that cannot be avoided or 

minimized, Section 106 of the NHPA would require a more detailed evaluation and determination of 

specific effects and proposed mitigation measures at the project level.

At the project level, recommended mitigation measures include various levels of excavation that 

could be used in cases where moderate or substantial effects on archaeological historic properties 

cannot be avoided or minimized. These options could include full excavation of the affected 

archaeological historic property, sampling the archaeological deposits, or focused excavation of the 

most intact archaeological deposits. The mitigation strategies often include NRHP nominations, 

short- and long-term archaeological site management, and educational materials for public 

outreach, including brochures, displays, and websites. Information gathering would be necessary 

before construction (including required documentation of the archaeological site), and development 

and publication of the associated education materials would occur during the construction and

operations phase.

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 7-1

7.0 Summary 

Within the regulatory context and purpose of the proposed Program, this technical study has 

examined archaeological sites within the EIS Study Area based on described evaluation methods 

within general cultural contexts. Examination of potential effects on the archaeological sites during

the construction phase of each alternative, as well as preliminary assessments of the intensity of 

these potential effects on sites, indicates that all alternatives, except for the No Build Alternative, 

have the potential to disturb known archaeological sites, which are underground remnants from 

prehistoric and historic cultural activities (see Table 7-1). No archaeological probes were conducted 

for this service-level EIS; therefore, this evaluation does not provide a true representation of 

archaeological resources present within the EIS Study Area and only presents information on 

previously recorded archaeological resources in the EIS Study Area. 

Future project-level analyses will establish an APE for archaeological sites for each specific project. 

Once identified, archaeological surveys of portions of each APE not previously investigated will be 

conducted for individual projects when they are proposed. These surveys would be conducted to 

identify potential archaeological sites (including cemeteries) within the APE, including those that 

have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Additionally, future project-level analysis regarding 

prehistoric cultural history will be required to determine a more detailed measure of prehistoric 

archaeological sensitivity for each specific project. This effort may include preparation of 

archaeological sensitivity maps and may require the incorporation of that future dataset into site 

location predictive settlement models. The project-level analysis will also need to consider that the 

potential for previously identified historic properties identified in this service-level analysis may 

include previously unidentified archaeological deposits that contribute to the significance of those 

historic properties.

Alternative N4A Conventional may only result in negligible effects because this alternative may be 

limited to improvements of existing rail tracks where previously recorded archaeological sites may 

already have been removed or disturbed. If further design results in locating the alternative parallel 

to existing tracks, it would potentially result in moderate effects on archaeological resources. 

The Central Section higher-speed rail alternatives could result in moderate effects on

archaeological resources. High-speed rail alternatives would likely result in substantial effects on 

archaeological resources because of the extent of project-related deep excavations necessary for 

such alternatives. Although higher-speed and high-speed rail service types would likely result in the 

removal of archaeological resources, avoidance may be more difficult for the high-speed rail 

alternatives than the higher-speed rail alternatives because of the larger area of soil disturbance 

where grade separations are necessary.

In the Southern Section, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have moderate effects on 

archaeological resources based on the extent of possible project-related disturbances. Alternative 

S6 Higher-Speed Rail is shorter in length compared to Alternative S4 and has fewer previously

identified archaeological resources, but it may still result in moderate effects on archaeological
TBG111814093418SCO

7.0 Summary

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 7-2

resources based on the extent of possible project-related disturbances associated with the rail 

construction.

Potential strategies to mitigate or minimize possible adverse effects on identified archaeological

historic properties within the EIS Study Area will be conducted at the project level and will include 

the development of MOAs and Program Agreements, as necessary. Minimization of adverse effects

on or avoidance of archaeological historic properties would likely be conducted at the project-level

evaluation. However, if minimization or avoidance is not possible, measures to mitigate adverse 

effects on such properties through various levels of archaeological excavation or alternative 

mitigation strategies would be used.

Table 7-1: Summary of Potential Intensity of Effects on Archaeological Sites 

Section Alternative

Context

No. of NRHP listed or 

eligible sites

Potential Intensity of 

Effectsa, b

No Build Alternativec Not applicable No effect

Northern N4A CONV 1 Moderate

Central 

C4A HrSR 1 Moderate 

C4A HSR 1 Substantial

C4B HrSR 2 Moderate

C4B HSR 2 Substantial

C4C HrSR 1 Moderate

C4C HSR 1 Substantial

Southern 

S4 HrSR 1 Moderate

S6 HrSR 0 Moderate

S6 HSR 0 Substantial 

a Limited to construction-phase effects only.

b The most intense effect for each alternative is presented in the table. However, alternatives may include additional 

less intense effects depending on urban, suburban or rural locations.

c The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air 

travel facilities within the EIS Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from 

potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on project-specific analysis.
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 8-1

8.0 References 

Barber, B.L. 1969. The Hackberry Site. The Record 25(3):18–24.

Black, S.L. 1989. South Texas Plains. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in 

Central, South, and Lower Pecos, Texas, by T.R. Hester, S.L. Black, D.G. Steele, B.W. Olive, 

A.A. Fox, K.J. Reinhard, and L.C. Bement. Research Series No. 33, pp. 17-62. Arkansas

Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Blair, W.F. 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas. In Texas Journal of Science, Vol. 2, pp. 93–117.

Bousman, C.B., B.W. Baker, and A.C. Kerr (Bousman et al.). 2004. Paleoindian Archeology in Texas. 

In Prehistory of Texas (edited by Timothy K. Perttula), pp. 15-97. Texas A&M University 

Press, College Station.

Brooks, R.L. 1989. Village Farming Societies. In From Clovis to Comanchero: Archeological 

Overview of the Southern Great Plains, by J.L. Hofman, R.L. Brooks, J.S. Hays, D.W. Owsley, 

R.L. Jantz, M.K. Marks, and M.H. Manheim. Research Series No. 3, pp. 71–90. Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Brooks, R.L. and R.D. Bowman. 2005. An Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the Walnut 

Creek Valley in Central Oklahoma. Oklahoma Archeological Survey. Archeological Resources 

Survey Report. No. 51, pp. 12-22. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Bruseth, J.E. and W.A. Martin (editors). 1987. The Bird Point Island and Adams Ranch Sites: 

Methodological and Theoretical Contributions to North Central Archaeology. Richland Creek 

Technical Series. Vol. II, pp. 165 and 280-284. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for 

the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Campbell, T.N. 1958. Archeology of the Central and Southern Sections of the Texas Coast. Bulletin 

of the Texas Archeological Society. Vol. 29, pp. 145-175.

Collins, M.B. 1995. Forty Years of Archeology in Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological 

Society 66:361–400.

Collins, M.B., assembler and editor. 1998. Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of 

Hunter-Gatherers in Central Texas. Studies in Archeology 31 and Archeology Studies 

Program Report 10, pp. 62-64. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of 

Texas at Austin, and Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation.
TBG111814093418SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 8-2

Drass, R.R. and E.J. Martin. 2010. National Register Testing of Three Plains Village Sites along the 

Red River Basin in Jefferson and Love Counties, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, 

Oklahoma. Archeological Resources Survey Report. No. 61, pp. 1-3. University of Oklahoma, 

Norman, Oklahoma.

Drass, R.R. and J.W. Clanahan. 2008. Archeological Survey along the Red River in Jefferson and 

Love Counties, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Archeological Survey. Oklahoma Archeological 

Resources Survey Report. No. 57, pp. 8-17. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Harris, R.K., and I.M. Harris. 1970. A Bison Kill on Dixon’s Branch, Site 27A2-5, Dallas County, 

Texas. The Record. Vol. 27(1), pp. 1–4.

Hester, J.J. 1972. Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1: A Stratified Early Man Site in Eastern New 

Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Publication 8. Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.

Hester, T.R. 1983. Late Paleo-Indian Occupations at Baker Cave, Southwestern Texas. Bulletin of 

the Texas Archeological Society. Vol. 53, pp. 101-119.

Hester, T.R. 1989. An Archeological Synthesis. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human 

Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos, Texas, edited by T.R. Hester, S.L. Black, D.G. 

Steele, B.W. Olive, A.A. Fox, K. Reinhard, and L.C. Bement. Research Series 33, pp.115-128. 

Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Hester, T.R. 1995. The Prehistory of South Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society. Vol. 

66, pp. 427–459.

Hofman, J.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. 

Hofman, R.L. Brooks, J.S. Hays, D.W. Owsley, R.L. Jantz, M.K. Marks, and M.H. Manheim. 

Research Series No. 35, pp. 25–60. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Holliday, V.T. 1999. Formation Time and Archaeology. In Soils in Archaeology, Landscape Evolution

and Human Occupation, edited by V. T. Holliday. pp. 101-117.

Johnson, E., and V.T. Holliday. 1980. A Plainview Kill/Butchering Site on the Llano Estacado−The 

Lubbock Lake Site. Plains Anthropologist 25, pp. 89-111.

Johnson, L., Jr. and G.T. Goode. 1994. A New Try at Dating and Characterizing Holocene Climates, as 

Well as Archeological Periods, on the Eastern Edwards Plateau. Bulletin of the Texas 

Archeological Society. Vol. 65, pp. 1-54.

Kelley, J.C. 1947. The Lehmann Rock Shelter: A Stratified Site of the Toyah, Uvalde and Round 

Rock Foci. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society. Vol. 18, pp. 115-

128.
TBG111814093418SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 8-3

Kenmotsu, N.A. and T.K. Perttula (editors). 1993 Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: 

A Planning Document. Cultural Resource Management Report 3. Department of Antiquities 

Protection, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Lynott, M.J. 1981. A Model of Prehistoric Adaptation in Northern Texas. Plains Anthropologist. Vol. 

26(92), pp. 97–110.

MacNeish, R.S. 1947. A Preliminary Report on Coastal Tamaulipas. American Antiquity. Vol. 13(1), 

pp. 1-15.

MacNeish, R.S. 1958. Preliminary Archeological Investigations in Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. 

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 48:6.

Meltzer, D.J., and M.R. Bever. 1995. Paleoindians of Texas: An Update on the Texas Clovis Fluted 

Point Survey. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Survey. Vol. 66, pp. 47–81.

Morris, V., and B. Morris. 1970. Excavation of Bison Remains in Northwest Dallas County. The 

Record. Vol. 27(1), pp.2–5.

Newcomb, W.W., Jr. 1961. The Indians of Texas: From Prehistoric to Modern Times. The University 

of Texas Press, Austin.

Newcomb, W.W., Jr. and T.N. Campbell. 1982. Southern Plains Ethnohistory: A Reexamination of 

the Escanjaques, Ahijados, and Cuitoas. In Pathways to Plains Prehistory: Anthropological 

Perspectives of Plains Natives and Their Pasts, edited by D. G. Wyckoff and J. L. Hofman. 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir 3 and the Cross Timbers Heritage Association 

Contributions 1, pp. 29–43. Duncan, Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS). 2014. Oklahoma Atlas of Archeological Sites and 

Management Activities. Available at http://www.ou.edu/cas/archsur/Atlas/atlas.htm. 

Accessed May 2014.

Parker, P.L., and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of 

Historic Places, Washington, D.C.

Patterson, L. 1989. Early Notched Projectile Points in Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6.

Perttula, T.K. 2004. An Introduction to Texas Prehistoric Archeology. In The Prehistory of Texas, 

edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp.5-14. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Prewitt, E.R. 1981. Cultural Chronology in Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society. 

Vol. 52, pp. 65-89.
TBG111814093418SCO

8.0 References

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 8-4

Prikryl, D. 1990. Lower Elm Fork Prehistory: A Redefinition of Cultural Concepts and Chronologies 

along the Trinity River, North-Central Texas. Office of the State Archeologist Report. No. 37. 

Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Prikryl, D. 1993. Regional Preservation Plan for Archeological Resources, Prairie-Savanna 

Archeological Region: Introduction. In Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: A 

Planning Document, edited by N.A. Kenmotsu and T.K. Perttula. Cultural Resource 

Management Report 3, pp.191–204. Department of Antiquities Protection, Texas Historical 

Commission, Austin.

Sayles, E.B. 1935. An Archaeological Survey of Texas. Medallion Papers XVII. Gila Pueblo, Globe, 

Arizona.

Stephenson, R.L. 1952. The Hogge Bridge Site and the Wylie Focus. American Antiquity. Vol. 17(4), 

pp. 299–312.

Story, D.A. 1990. Cultural History of the Native Americans. In The Archeology and Bioarcheology of 

the Gulf Coastal Plain, by D.A. Story, J.A. Guy, B.A. Burnett, M. Doty Freeman, J.C. Rose, D.G. 

Steele, B.W. Olive, and K.J. Reinhard. Research Series No. 38, pp. 182-184. Arkansas 

Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Suhm, D.A., A.D. Krieger, and E.B. Jelks (Suhm et al.). 1954. An Introductory Handbook of Texas 

Archeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society. Vol. 25.

Texas Historical Commission (THC). 2014. Texas Archeological Sites Atlas. Available at 

http://nueces.thc.state.tx.us. Accessed May 2014.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June.

Turner, E.S. and T. R. Hester. 1999. A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. 2nd edition. 

Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, Lanham, Maryland.

University of Texas. 2014. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory’s site file repository and library 

records. Accessed May 2014.

Witt, B.A. 2005. Differential Use of Space: An Analysis of the Aubrey Clovis Site. Unpublished 

Master’s Thesis, p. 10. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.

Wyckoff, D. G. and R. L. Brooks. 1983. Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspective. Oklahoma 

Archeological Survey. Archeological Resources Survey Report. No. 16, pp. 72-84. University 

of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Archaeological Sites Technical Study Page 9-1

9.0 Preparers 

Debra L. Beene 

M.A. Anthropology, minor in Archaeology. University of Texas at Austin. 27 years of experience in 

prehistoric resources management and environmental analysis.

Andrea Burden 

M.A. Anthropology; Certificate in Historic Preservation, College of Architecture. Texas A&M 

University.

Timothy Griffith 

Ph.D. Anthropology. University of Kansas (ABD). 
This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by

Blanton & Associates, Inc. 

and