Archeological Survey of Loop 336, from South of Interstate Highway 45 to Farm-To-Market 1314, Montgomery County, Texas

Archeological Survey of Loop 336, from South of Interstate Highway 45 to Farm-to-Market 1314, Montgomery County, Texas

CSJ: 0338-11-056

Prepared by: Julian A. Sitters

Date: May 2017

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Archeological Survey of Loop 336, from South of Interstate Highway 45 to Farm-to- Market 1314, Montgomery County, Texas

CSJ: 0338-11-056

by Julian A. Sitters

Principal Investigator Julian A. Sitters

Prepared for

Texas Department of Transportation Houston, Texas

Technical Report No. 198

Prepared by

Austin, Texas

May 2017 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Abstract Abstract

In May of 2017, AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. (AmaTerra) conducted an intensive archeological survey for the proposed improvements to Loop 336, in southern Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas (CSJ No.: 0338-11-056). The total project length is approximately 2.25 miles, or about 86 acres in size, with no new Right-of-Way (ROW). AmaTerra conducted the archeological survey of the existing ROW under Texas Antiquities Permit No. 8006.

Archeological investigations consisted of a thorough pedestrian survey and the excavation of 79 shovel tests throughout the Area-of-Potential Effect (APE) where access was available. Field archeologists observed multiple landscape modifications primarily associated with transportation and suburban development. None of the shovel tests contained any artifacts and no new archeological sites were identified during field investigations. Based on the results of this survey, no additional archeological investigations within the proposed APE are warranted at this time. No artifacts were collected during the survey. All records, project notes, and photographs will be curated at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory in Austin.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. i Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

ii AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Abstract...... i

Chapter 1. Introduction and Management Summary...... 1 Loop 336 from East of Cypress Lane Boulevard to West of FM 1314...... 1 Loop 336 South at FM 1314...... 1 Area of Potential Effects...... 1

Chapter 2. Project Background...... 5 Environmental Setting...... 5 Physiography...... 5 Vegetation...... 5 Climate...... 5 Geology and Soils...... 5

Chapter 3. Regional Chronology and Cultural Background...... 9 Pre-Clovis and Paleoindian...... 9 Archaic...... 9 Ceramic Period...... 10 Late Prehistoric ...... 10 Historic...... 11 Cultural Resources in Proximity to the Project Area...... 11 Prehistoric Land Use...... 13 Historic Land Use...... 13

Chapter 4. Methodology...... 19

Chapter 5. Survey Results...... 21

Chapter 6. Recommendations...... 25

References...... 27

Appendix A. Schematics and Typical Sections

Appendix B. Shovel Test Locations

Appendix C. Shovel Test Logs

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. iii Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

iv AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. List of Figures and Tables

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the proposed Loop 336 improvement project located in southern Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas...... 3 Figure 2. Soil units present within the APE...... 7 Figure 3. Previously conducted archeological surveys within one kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE...... 12 Figure 4. The APE depicted on a 1901 General Land Office Map of Montgomery County, Texas...... 14 Figure 5. The APE depicted on a 1938 USDA map of the Sam Houston National Forest...... 15 Figure 6. Detail from a 1953 aerial photograph depicting the location of the APE...... 16 Figure 7. Detail from a 1977 aerial photograph depicting the location of the APE...... 17 Figure 8. Areas defined as having high archeological potential depicted on a 2013 Conroe, TX 7.5-minute topographic map...... 20 Figure 9. Typical setting within the APE, photographed facing southeast...... 22 Figure 10. Variability in ground surface visibility across the APE...... 22 Figure 11. A view of Little Caney and Stewarts Creeks...... 23 Figure 12. Disturbances associated with transportation land use...... 23 Figure 13. Utility line corridor with buried pipeline, photographed facing southeast...... 24 Figure 14. Typical disturbances observed at the intersections within the APE ...... 24

List of Tables

Table 1. Soil Units Found within the APE (USDA-NRCS 2017; Abbott 2001)...... 6 Table 2. Summary of Previously Conducted Archeological Surveys within One Kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE (Atlas 2017)...... 13

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. v Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

vi AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 1 Introduction and Management Summary

In May of 2017, under subcontract to Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, Inc. (EPR) and on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. (AmaTerra) conducted an archeological survey in advance of the proposed Loop 336 improvement project in southern Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas (CSJ No: 0338-11- 056; Figure 1). The project will extend from Interstate Highway (IH) 45 to Farm-to-Market (FM) 1314, a distance of approximately 2.25 miles. The proposed project would expand an existing two-lane facility into a divided, four-lane median separated highway with a sidewalk on the south side of the eastbound lanes. All work would take place within an existing dedicated 300-foot right-of-way (ROW).

Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archeological resources for this undertaking is defined as the footprint of the proposed project to the maximum depth of impact, including all easements, utility relocations, and project specific locations. Therefore, the APE for archeological resources will cover a total distance of approximately 2.25 miles and encompass an area roughly 86 acres in size. The proposed undertaking will take place entirely within a 300-foot-wide existing ROW. The vertical APE (depth of impacts) is estimated to extend no more than three to five feet below the subsurface. Project schematics provided by the Houston District are in Appendix A.

The proposed project is being funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through TxDOT and is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Since the project is being built with Federal transportation money on land owned or controlled by the State of Texas, it is also considered an undertaking subject to the provisions outlined under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), as well as the Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT). Therefore, AmaTerra’s work conformed to the guidelines under 36 CFR Part 800 and 13 TAC Chapter 26, which outline the regulations for implementing Section 106 and the ACT respectively.

All work was conducted under the terms and conditions of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement for Transportation Undertakings (2005; PA-TU) among the FHWA, TxDOT, the Texas Historical Commission (THC) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between TxDOT and the THC.

Coordination with TxDOT resulted in a survey recommendation for the entire APE. Archeological investigations consisted of a pedestrian survey and shovel testing of all undisturbed portions of the proposed APE, where access was available. The undertaking would be built on public property, of which, AmaTerra had access to 100 percent of the proposed APE at the time of survey. Archeologists excavated a total of 79 shovel tests along

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 1 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas two survey transects. While no new archeological sites were recorded, archeologists did observed a plainware whiteware ceramic sherd, a blue vessel glass shard, and a milk glass shard in the gravels of Stewarts Creek. However, the artifacts are in secondary context and did not originate from within the APE. No additional archeological work is recommended for the APE at this time.

Field investigations took place from May 1–3, 2017 under Texas Antiquities Permit No. 8006. Julian (Drew) Sitters acted as Principal Investigator and field lead, while Noel Steinle assisted with field investigations. A total of 60 person hours were expended in the field in support of this project. Weather conditions were good and archeologists encountered no difficulties in completing the investigations. This was a no collection survey; therefore, all artifacts were returned to their original location.

This report is divided into six chapters. The project background and cultural overview are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 4 includes the field methodology implemented during the project and the results of field investigations are discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the summary and recommendations.

2 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 1. Location of the proposed Loop 336 improvement project located in southern Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 3 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

4 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 2 Project Background

Environmental Setting

Physiography The APE is located within the Southern Tertiary Uplands, a subregion of the South Central Plains ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2007). This ecoregion, which is locally known as the “piney woods” (Gould 1975), “represents the western edge of the southern coniferous forest belt” (Griffith et al. 2007:87). Encompassing approximately 7,667 square miles, this subregion is characterized by “dissected irregular plains with some low, rolling hills; low to moderate gradient streams with sandy and silty substrates” (Griffith et al. 2007:91). Elevation within the Southern Tertiary Uplands ranges from 90 to 550 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL).

Vegetation Historically, natural vegetation within the Southern Tertiary Uplands consisted of upland longleaf pine-bluestem (Pinus palustris-Schizachyrium spp. and Andropogon spp.) woodlands, shortleaf pine-hardwood (Pinus echinata-Quercus spp.) forests, and mixed hardwood-loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forests, as well as American beech (Fagus grandifolia) or magnolia-beech-forests, bogs, and sandstone glades. Bog plant species include southern sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), hollies or gallberry (Ilex spp.), wax-myrtles (Morella spp.), insectivorous plants, orchids, and wild azalea (Rhododendron spp.). Today, pine forest is the dominant vegetation type with National Forest land making up large parts of this region. Aside from public land, additional land uses include pine plantations, timber production, and some pasture and livestock production (Griffith et al. 2007).

Climate The climate within the Southern Tertiary Uplands is subtropical with hot, usually humid, and wet summers with mild to cool winters (Peel et al. 2007). Annually, the APE receives roughly 40 to 50 inches of precipitation and has a mean annual air temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit (USDA-NRCS 2017).

Geology and Soils The APE is underlain by the Pliocene-age Willis Formation (Qwc), which is composed mostly of clay, silt, sand, and siliceous granule to pebble gravel (BEG 1992). According to the United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2017), the APE encompasses eight named soil units (Table 1; Figure 2). Soils are characterized by loam to very fine sandy loam with restrictive features, such as clay, encountered as shallow as 36 centimeters below the ground surface (cmbs).

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 5 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Table 1. Soil Units Found within the APE (USDA-NRCS 2017; Abbott 2001).

Landform/ Solum Typical Soil Profile Geoarch. Soil Unit Topographic Parent Material Thickness (0-100 cmbs) Potential Position (cm) Loamy alluvium Atasco fine 0-15: Fine Sandy Loam derived from igneous, sandy loam Terraces/Upland 15-35: Very Fine Sandy Loam >60 Low metamorphic and (AtaC) 35-100: Clay sedimentary rock Conroe Sandy and gravelly 0-63: Gravelly Loamy Fine Sand gravelly Interfluves/ fluviomarine 63-78: Sandy Clay Loam 60-100+ Low loamy fine Upland deposits over clayey 78-100: Clay sand (CnC) fluviomarine deposits Conroe 0-63: Loamy Fine Sand Interfluves/ loamy fine Clayey marine deposits 63-78: Sandy Clay Loam 60-100+ Low Upland sand (CoC) 78-100: Clay Hatliff-Pluck- Flood Plains/ Loam alluvium of Kian complex Forested 0-100 Fine Sandy Loam 10 (Hatliff) High Holocene-age (HatA) Floodplain Landman fine Stream Terraces/ Loamy alluvium and/ 0-100: Fine Sand - - sand (Ab) Unknown or sandy alluvium Lilbert loamy Interfluves/ 0-58: Loamy Fine Sand Loamy marine deposits - - fine sand (Fs) Unknown 58-100: Sandy Clay Loam Sorter- Loamy fluviomarine Tarkington deposits derived from Flats/Upland 0-100: Very Fine Sandy Loam 60-100+ Low complex igneous, metamorphic (SosA) and sedimentary rock Splendora Loamy fluviomarine 0-38: Fine Sandy Loam fine sandy Flatwoods/Upland deposits of Early 60-100+ Low 0-100: Loam loam (SplB) Pleistocene-age

6 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 2. Soil units present within the APE.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 7 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

8 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 3 Regional Chronology and Cultural Background

The project area is situated within the Southeast Texas archeological region (Perttula 2004). Human occupation in the Southeast Texas archeological region can be divided into two stages: Prehistoric and Historic. Furthermore, the Prehistoric Stage can be divided into the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric Periods. A brief description of these stages and periods is provided below.

Pre-Clovis and Paleoindian The arrival of humans in the New World may have occurred as early as 16,000 years ago with Pre-Clovis peoples (Jennings and Waters 2014). Pre-Clovis occupation of Texas is evident at the Debra L. Friedkin Site located along Buttermilk Creek in Bell County (Waters et al. 2011). Artifacts found at this site include bifaces, a discoidal core, edge-modified flake tools, blade fragments, bladelets, a polished piece of hematite, and macrodebitage. Other sites in Texas with probable Pre-Clovis components include the Gault Site, situated upstream from the Debra L. Friedkin Site (Collins nd). Following Pre-Clovis is the Paleoindian Period, which dates from 11,500 to 8000 BP.

Diagnostic artifacts (e.g., projectile point types) associated with the Paleoindian Period and found within the Southeast Texas archeological region include Clovis, Folsom, San Patrice, Scottsbluff, Plainview, and Angostura projectile points. No systematic excavation of a Paleoindian site has taken place in this region. However, Paleoindian artifacts have been recovered from mixed contexts of Archaic age. Artifacts associated with the Paleoindian period have been found in abundance on the surface especially along major stream drainages. In fact, one of these sites is situated on an ancient tributary stream drainage currently located offshore of McFaddin Beach.

Archaic The Archaic Stage is typically divided into three smaller subperiods, Early, Middle and Late, and is characterized by a wider variety of plant and animal exploitation with a slight decrease in group mobility over the Paleoindian Period (Black 1989). Additionally, “the Archaic in Texas is generally defined by pre- or nonhorticultural adaptations and pre-ceramic and pre- bow-and-arrow hunting technologies” (Ricklis 2004: 184). Sites are typically located along stream courses and diagnostic point types include the Bell/Calf Creek, Travis, Yarbrough, Bulverde, Kent, Gary, and Ensor, to name a few.

During the Late Archaic Period, “a shift to the use of poorer quality and more local lithic resources…suggests reduced group mobility and more tightly defined group territories” (Story 1990 cited in Ricklis 2004: 185). This assumption is also supported by the increase

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 9 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas in cemeteries during the Late Archaic times. Due to the numerous Late Archaic sites it is believed this subperiod experienced a significant population growth.

The earliest evidence for estuarine resource exploitation on the upper Texas coast comes from site 41GV53, which produced an uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 5000-4200 BP, and the Eagle’s Ridge site. These sites produced large shell middens, a barrel-shaped conch columenlla bed, cut rangia and gastropod shells, perforated oyster shell and rangia valves, and fish remains (Ricklis 2004). While white-tailed deer accounted for 80 percent of the animal biomass at the Eagle Ridge site, fish came in second with 10 percent of the biomass.

The Archaic Period ends with the introduction of ceramic wares.

Ceramic Period Ceramics appear in the archeological records around AD 100 in the Galveston Bay area. Despite the emergence of ceramics, “there are currently no indications of major changes in lifeways during the Early Ceramic Period” (Ricklis 2004: 189). Dee Ann Story (1990) has suggested that Ceramic Period cultures are archeologically distinct from neighboring regions. Thus, resulting in her coining of the term Mossy Grover Tradition/Culture for the Ceramic Period in the area.

Sites associated with the Mossy Grove Culture are found in the upper Texas Gulf coast, southwestern Louisiana, and the southern portions of the Texas Piney Woods. Utilizing ceramics composed of a sandy paste, the Mossy Grove culture is characterized by thin, decorated ceramics with narrow incised lines and punctations. Many of these ceramics are described as, “sandy paste wares with thin walls, floated surfaces, and rounded or conical- shaped bases” (Ellis 2013:141). Differences in settlement and subsistence patterns, as well as technology has led archeologists to divide this tradition into two sub-periods: the Coastal margins and the Inland Coastal Plain (Ellis 2013). The inland subregion is characterized by a hunter and gatherer subsistence strategy with short term occupation sites consisting of plain sandy paste ceramics, Gary and Kent dart points, sparse lithic scatters, and ground stone. Sites with Mossy Grove cultural components include the Jonas Hill site (41PK8) and the Crawford site (41PK69) (Ensor and Carlson 1988; McClurkan 1968).

Late Prehistoric The Late Prehistoric Period saw the shift in hunting technology from the atlatl to the bow and arrow around AD 700 (Ricklis 2004). This technology enabled prehistoric hunters to harvest prey from greater distances with a lesser need for brushless, wide open spaces required for atlatl maneuverability. The use of arrows is indicated by “the appearance of small, light straight- and expanding-stem stone arrow points” (Ricklis 2004:194). Projectile points associated with the Late Prehistoric Period include Alba, Catahoula, Perdiz, and Scallorn types. This Period is often divided into two subperiods. The first subperiod involves

10 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas the introduction of the bow and arrow, while the second subperiod encompasses the Toyah Phase, a time of extensive bison exploitation.

Historic Conroe, the county seat of Montgomery County, was established when Houston lumberman Isaac Conroe moved his sawmill from Stewarts Creek to the International & Great Northern Railroad’s (I&GN) Houston-Crockett line. By 1884, Conroe’s sawmill became a station along the I&GN Railroad. Around this time, the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway’s Navasota to Montgomery spur was built through Conroe forming the only major junction of rail lines in Montgomery County. Settlers moved to the region with the prospect of profiting from the region’s lumber boom. By 1892, the town of Conroe supported five steam-powered saw and planning mills, several brickyards, a cotton gin, a gristmill, several hotels and general stores, and supported a population of 500 residents. Conroe became an important shipping point for lumber, cotton, livestock, tobacco, and bricks (Jackson 2016). Both the agricultural and timber industries continued to thrive through the early twentieth century, but was curtailed with the dwindling supply of local timber and the Great Depression. In 1931, George W. Strake discovered oil seven miles to the southeast of Conroe, which temporarily stimulated the local economy. A revival of the lumber industry, the construction of Interstate Highway 45, and the impounding of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River forming Lake Conroe all helped to promote growth within the community. Today, the City of Conroe supports 63,322 residents (Jackson 2016).

Cultural Resources in Proximity to the Project Area Background research for this project consisted of an online records search through the THC’s Archeological Sites Atlas (Atlas; 2017) and a review of historical maps and aerial photographs. Research focused on the identification of archeological sites, sites listed as State Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), cemeteries, and previously conducted archeological surveys within one kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE (Figure 3). The search revealed that no previously recorded archeological sites, SALs, RTHLs, or sites listed on the NRHP fall within one kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE. However, one cemetery and 13 previously conducted archeological surveys are near or bisect the APE.

A least 13 previously conducted archeological surveys fall within one kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE (Table 2). Of these, three bisect the current project area. Surprisingly, only one of the archeological surveys resulted in the recording of new archeological sites; none of which, are located within the APE.

The Conroe Memorial Park Cemetery (Cemetery ID Number: MQ-C011) is situated approximately 825 meters (0.5 mile) to the north of the APE. The cemetery opened in 1944 and reportedly contains over three thousand interments. While still active, the proposed undertaking will not have any foreseen effects on the cemetery.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 11 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas Previously conducted archeological surveys within one kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE. within one kilometer surveys archeological conducted 3. Previously Figure

12 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Table 2. Summary of Previously Conducted Archeological Surveys within One Kilometer (0.62 mile) of the APE (Atlas 2017). Antiquities Sponsor or Proximity to No. of Fieldwork Year Contractor Permit No. Agency APE (meters) New Sites - 1980 - EPA Bisects 0 - 1983 - EPA – TWDB Bisects 0 - 1986 - SDHPT 70 0 - 1990 - EPA - TWDB 450 0 - 1992 - FHWA 50 0 1807 1997 BC and AD Archaeology City of Conroe 110 0 2358 2000 - City of Conroe 645 0 Moore Archeological - 2006 USACE-Galveston 860 0 Consulting, Inc. 4314 2007 Blanton and Associates, Inc. TxDOT Bisects 0 4733 2007 Brazos Valley Research Associates Montgomery County Bisects 0 6220 2012 SWCA USACE 230 0 - 2013 and 2015 HRA Gray & Pape Private 160 ~5

Prehistoric Land Use A review of archeological sites near, but outside of the one kilometer (0.62 mile) buffer (41MQ62, 41MQ299, 41MQ321, 41MQ322, 41MQ323, 41MQ324, and 41MQ325), revealed multiple short to long-term prehistoric occupation sites situated along the edge of stream terraces that overlook small creeks or drainages. These sites contained a range of cultural materials including lithic debitage composed of chert, petrified wood, and quartzite, a flake core, both dart and arrow points, ceramic sherds, and non-human faunal remains. Artifacts were recorded between 10 and 100+ cmbs within the Landman fine sand soil unit. According to the sites’ recorder(s), all but one site (41MQ62) lacked research potential and were recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or as a SAL.

Historic Land Use According to a 1901 General Land Office Map of Montgomery County, Texas, the APE crosses land originally patented by Hansom House and A. M. Folks (Figure 4). A 1938 USDA Map of the Sam Houston National Forest depicts the APE as devoid of development with the exception of a pipeline owned by the Prairie Pipe Line Company (Figure 5). In 1953, the APE remained undeveloped with the exception of a transmission line corridor and the construction of FM 1314 at the project’s easternmost end (Figure 6). Urban development began to encroach upon the APE by the late 1970s (Figure 7). Two cleared, linear features are visible crossing the APE at this time and are either pipelines or unimproved roads. Loop 336 was constructed sometime prior to 1989. However, aside from the construction of FM 336 and the pipelines or transmission lines, the APE has remained forested and relatively free of development (see Figure 1).

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 13 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 4. The APE depicted on a 1901 General Land Office Map of Montgomery County, Texas.

14 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 5. The APE depicted on a 1938 USDA map of the Sam Houston National Forest.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 15 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 6. Detail from a 1953 aerial photograph depicting the location of the APE.

16 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 7. Detail from a 1977 aerial photograph depicting the location of the APE.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 17 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

18 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 4 Methodology

Prior to field investigations, archeologists conducted archival research to assess the potential for buried historic and prehistoric archeological materials. This research involved examining historical maps, aerial photographs, soil maps, and the Potential Archeological Liability Map of the Houston District (Abbott 2011). As mentioned above, archeologists consulted the Atlas to assess the potential for prehistoric archeological sites within the APE. This not only allowed investigators to determine the presence of previously recorded archeological sites within the APE, but also to gain a sense of site types, artifact types, and average depth of cultural materials below the surface, among other things. This information coupled with topography and proximity to water, allowed investigators to define areas of high probability for archeological sites (Figure 8). The background study determined that the APE has archeological potential mainly around Stewarts Creek and Little Caney Creek. The APE limits, along with areas deemed to have potential for containing archeological materials, were overlaid on topographic maps and loaded onto hand-held DeLorme GPS units to aid in navigation.

Archeological fieldwork consisted of a pedestrian survey supplemented by both systematic and strategically placed shovel tests. Investigators manually excavated 79 shovel tests at approximately 100-meter intervals along two survey transects within APE. However, shovel test spacing was reduced within those areas having higher archeological potential (Appendix B). While conducting the pedestrian survey, archeologists observed multiple areas of disturbance. Areas of disturbances were thoroughly photographed and archeologists made notes on the conditions they encountered during their investigations. Archeologists attempted to avoid these observed disturbances during shovel testing. In addition, investigators visually assessed the banks and beds of both Little Caney and Stewarts Creeks for cultural material and/or features.

Shovel tests measured 30 centimeters in diameter and extended to a maximum depth of 80 centimeters below surface (cmbs) or until encountering restrictive features (e.g., dense clay). The shovel tests were excavated in 10-centimeter increments and all soil was screened through a ¼-inch hardware cloth. Relevant information for all shovel tests was recorded on a standardized form. Shovel tests were backfilled upon completion. This archeological investigation was a non-collection survey; therefore, artifacts, were returned to their original location.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 19 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 8. Areas defined as having high archeological potential depicted on a 2013 Conroe, TX 7.5-minute topographic map.

20 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 5 Survey Results

The proposed Loop 336 improvement project is taking place within a rapidly growing suburban community. The natural landscape within the APE is generally flat with subtle topographic relief ranging in elevation from approximately 141 to 182 feet AMSL. The APE crosses two named creeks, Little Caney and Stewarts Creeks, and one unnamed wet weather drainage. Vegetation within the APE consisted of young to mature pine, young oak, and magnolia trees, palmetto, greenbrier, medium grasses, blackberry, and wildflowers (Figure 9). During field investigations the temperature ranged from 42 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit and the project area received 0.23 inches of rain.

Soils encountered within the APE were relatively deep (Depth: min 5 cmbs; max 80 cmbs; average 65 cmbs) and were characterized by pale brown (10YR 6/3) to light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) fine to very fine sandy loam containing colored pebbles underlain by a dense yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay. Ground surface visibility ranged from poor to good across the APE (Figures 10a–c). Within the tree line ground surface visibility was hampered by leaf litter; thus, considered poor (0 percent). On the other hand, ground surface visibility within the treeless corridor was moderate (ranging from 30 to 70 percent). Lastly, around disturbances the ground surface visibility was good (from 70 to 90 percent).

Investigators had access to 100 percent of the proposed APE. Along the 2.25-mile stretch, archeologists excavated a total of 79 shovel tests (Appendices B and C) for a rate of one shovel test every 75 meters, or one shovel test for every 1.08 acres. Within the 21.5 acres defined as having high potential for prehistoric archeological sites, 33 of the 79 shovel tests were excavated for a rate of one shovel test for every 0.65 acre. None of the shovel tests contained any artifacts. Archeologists walked the creek beds looking for cultural materials. There was no stream flow within Little Caney Creek (Figure 11A) exposing a large gravel bar composed of colored gravels under the Loop 336 bridge. No cultural materials were observed within Little Caney Creek. However, Stewarts Creek (Figure 11B), with a weak current and sandy gravel bars, contained one plain whiteware sherd, a blue vessel glass shard, and a milk glass shard. The historic materials are in secondary context and did not originate from within the APE.

Visual reconnaissance revealed disturbances associated with both transportation and urban development within the APE. For example, roadside drainages border both sides of Loop 336 (Figure 12), buried utilities are present in numerous locations along the roadway (Figure 13), and artificially leveled and paved surfaces are present at many of the intersections (Figure 14). Archeologists did not shovel test within these localities.

Ultimately, no new archeological sites were observed within the APE.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 21 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 9. Typical setting within the APE, photographed facing southeast.

Figure 10. Variability in ground surface visibility across the APE: A) poor (0%) ground surface visibility within the tree line, photographed facing east; B) moderate (30 to 70%) ground surface visibility within the treeless corridor, photographed facing southwest; and C) good (70 to 90%) ground surface visibility within disturbed areas, photographed facing southwest.

22 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 11. A view of Little Caney and Stewarts Creeks: A) Little Caney Creek, photographed facing south; and B) Stewarts Creek, photographed facing northeast.

Figure 12. Disturbances associated with transportation land use: A and B) drainages located within the roadside drainage ditches; and C) roadside drainage ditch paralleling existing Loop 336, photographed facing northwest.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 23 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Figure 13. Utility line corridor with buried pipeline, photographed facing southeast.

Figure 14. Typical disturbances observed at the intersections within the APE: A) view of the northeast corner of the Loop 336 and Conroe Porter Road intersection, photographed facing west; B) view of the northeast corner of the Loop 336 and Stewarts Forest Drive intersection, photographed facing northwest; C) view of the southwest corner of the Loop 336 and Conroe Porter Road intersection, photographed facing southeast; and D) view of the northern portion of the westernmost unnamed intersection along Loop 336, photographed facing west.

24 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Chapter 6 Recommendations

AmaTerra surveyed the proposed 2.25-mile long Loop 336 improvement project, from IH-45 to FM 1314, in southern Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas. The project was conducted under Section 106 and the ACT and work conformed to the guidelines for implementation of these regulations under 36 CFR Part 800 and 13 TAC Chapter 26. Access was available to 100 percent of the proposed APE. Conditions affecting fieldwork included poor ground surface visibility, and disturbances associated within transportation and urban development.

Archeologists conducted a thorough pedestrian survey and excavated 79 shovel tests in support of this project. Shovel tests were placed at regular intervals (approximately every 100 meters) along the proposed improvement project, as well as strategically placed within areas having high archeological potential. No archeological materials of any sort were observed on the ground surface or found in any of the shovel tests. However, investigators did document a plain whiteware sherd, a blue vessel glass shard, and a milk glass shard in the bed of Stewarts Creek. The artifacts are in secondary context and did not originate from within the APE. No shovel tests were conducted within disturbed areas; specifically, within the transmission and pipeline corridor or in the roadside drainage ditches. A visual inspection of these areas suggests that the potential for buried, in situ archeological materials is low. Based on the results of the archeological survey AmaTerra recommends no further work for any portion of the APE.

Archeologists did not collect any artifacts during this survey and therefore none will be curated at TARL. This report is submitted in fulfillment of Antiquities Permit No. 8006.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 25 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

26 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. References

References

Abbott, Jim 2001 Framework for Archeological Investigation, Interpretation, and Cultural Resource Management in the Houston Highway District. Archeological Studies Program Report 27. Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division.

Black, S. L. 1989 Central Texas Plateau Prairie. 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, pp. 17–36. Research Series No. 33. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) 1992 Geologic Map of Texas. The University of Texas, Austin.

Collins, M. B. Nd Evidence for Older-Than-Clovis at the Gault Site, Texas. Poster with contributions by S. Ayala, B. Bradley, S. Forman, C. Frederick, J. Gandy, A. Gilmer, R. Lassen, B. Nash, J. Patton, L. Perry, J. Rink, M. Shoberg, C. A. Speer, C. Wernecke, T. Williams, and N. Velchoff. Electronic document, https://www.academia.edu/6895594/ EVIDENCE_FOR_OLDER-THAN-CLOVIS_AT_THE_GAULT_SITE_TEXAS_By_Mike_ Collins, accessed July 2016.

Ellis, L. 2013 Woodland Ceramics in East Texas and a Case Study of Mill Creek Culture Ceramics. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 84:137-180.

Gould, Frank J. 1975 Texas Plants – A Checklist and Ecological Summary. MP-585 Revised. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station.

Griffith, Glenn, Sandy Bryce, James Omernik, and Anne Rogers 2007 Ecoregions of Texas. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Jackson, Charles Christopher 2017 Conroe, TX – Handbook of Texas Online. Electronic document, https://tshaonline. org/handbook/online/articles/hec03, accessed May 2017.

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. 27 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

Jennings, T., and M. Waters 2014 Pre-Clovis Lithic Technology at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas: Comparisons to Clovis Through Site-Level Behavior, Technological Trait-List, and Cladistic Analyses. American Antiquity 79(1): 25-44.

Peel, M. C., B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon 2007 Updated World Map of the Koppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633-1644.

Ricklis, Robert A. 2004 The Archeology of the Native American Occupation of Southeast Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp.181-202. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Story, D. A. 1990 Cultural History of the Native Americans. In The Archaeology and Bioarcheology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, Volume 2, by Dee Ann Story, Janice A. Guy, Barbara A. Burnett, Martha Doty Freeman, Jerome C. Rose, D. Gentry Steele, Ben W. Olive, and Karl J. Reinhard, pp. 163-366. Research Series No. 38. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Texas Historic Sites Atlas (Atlas) 2017 Texas Archeological Sites Atlas – Texas Historical Commission. Electronic document, accessed May 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service 2017 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ app/HomePage.htm, accessed May 2017.

Waters, R. Michael, S. L. Forman, T. A. Jennings, L. C. Nordt, S. G. Driese, J. M. Feinberg, J. L Keene, J. Halligan, A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C. T. Hallmark, M. B. Collins, and J. E. Wiederhold 2011 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science, 331:1599-1603.

28 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix A

Appendix A

Schematics and Typical Sections

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. A-1 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

A-2 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT LP 336 SOUTH COUNTY: MONTGOMERY CSJ: 0338-11-020

LIMITS FROM: I-45 DATE: 11/30/2016

LIMITS TO: 0.2 MI EAST OF FM 1314 APPROVED: / /

L T

NOT A BIDDING DOCUMENT N I T T

E ,P.E. C

M T I TBPE NO. P

R L T

E S

C E

D RESTRIPED WB RD. ON A

N S

E LEGEND E J

DESCRIPTION SYMBOLOGY WEIGHT COLOR CODE 300' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY C O

HOU L Y PROPOSED MAIN LANES 2 BLACK -0 27' 123' 150' R 2' PROPOSED TOLL LANES 2 PURPLE -60 13.5' 12' 8' P

PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROADS 5 BLUE -1 C PROPOSED RAMPS 2 BLUE -1

PROPOSED DIRECT CONNECTOR 2 ORANGE -6 R PROPOSED EMBANKMENT 2 RED -3

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 6 RED -3 E PROPOSED BRIDGE BENTS 2 RED -3 EXISTING ROW PROPOSED NOISE WALL 5 MAGENTA -37 END PROJECT E PROPOSED SIDEWALKS 2 MAGENTA -200

PROPOSED STRIPING 1 ORANGE -6 A K PROPOSED LANE INDICATOR 1 BLACK -0 P

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 5 BLACK -0 EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION 317

CONTROL OF ACCESS 2 RED -3 LOOP 336 SOUTH FROM STEWARTS FOREST DR. TO 1400' EAST OF FM 1314 325+00 PLANIMETRIC 1 GREEN -2 +

39 330 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 BLACK -0 00 +0 320+ 0 . EXISTING ROADWAY 2 GREEN -2 64 L OOP EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED 1 BLACK -0

EXISTING LANE INDICATOR 1 GREEN -2

336 00 + TRAFFIC COUNT YEAR ( ) DHV XXXXXX 1 BLACK -0 25 Billboard 4 00 335

+ +00 315

P F C COLORFILL LEGEND 4

+00 1

310 9 M

K + 1 E

2 00 340 E . + 0

5 + FRONTAGE ROAD/RAMPS

00 42 R 4 Billboard 1314

. C +00

BRIDGE 305

T S

344 T

VD +

SCALE 62 35 R

300' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY . A

3 +00

C 0 . L 30 L

0 100 200 300 400 3

27' 123' 108' 42' 4 A

4 3

2' 1' 4 300' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY

. 7

13.5' 12' 8' 12' 15' 9

B C L .

2 27' 123' 108' 42'

SHARED W 9 345

T 00

LANE 1 +

O 1' T

+ +

VARIES 12' 12' VARIES 12' 12' 15' 12' 15' R 00

P 415 0 E 3

DESIGN CRITERIA 5+0 E LEFT SHARED RIGHT 29 SHLDR SHLDR

TURN LANE TURN 41

D T T

. S FH

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL T

FRONTAGE ROAD DESIGN CRITERIA: URBAN COLLECTOR R AN

SDWLK S

FRONTAGE ROAD DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH L

C PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION E SDWLK

LOOP 336 SOUTH 3

EXISTING ROW 00

0 + RESTRIPED WB RD. FROM STEWARTS FOREST DR. TO 1400' EAST OF FM 1314 PROPOSED EB RD.

. 410

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION R 350 6

OP LE 2 O

A-A + L SS

RESTRIPED WB RD. PROPOSED EB RD. 00 +

O P A 05

336

E 400

F C 336

R 00 RESTRIPED WB RD. 1 + BEGIN PROJECT 405 8

S .

K 8 P

E 4 L T

R PROPOSED

R +00 A 400

C SIDEWALK

A 355 K P + INTERSTATE 00 H W VICINTY MAP A EXISTING ROW E P 45 C R 00 3 + 92 395 H C IG T A H

M ECR P N A E W L S T B + L LE AK A ES D NO R ID O E L R Y W E E 59 A D A I A O B V O E S S OOD W IN t T G P W W e IN E w I LL NG S I a O CR R DV OD Hickory r LL O P O t O O E s ADDO R W K E Grove W E K IN OA C OD . U P E O IT W C A L P H K F W O CR 37 R ANDA EE S K K

R VE RI

2432 52 0.6 T

S 830 ING PR . S ER CR ILV S Y S TA T 9 MBAR A ISK L T I CR EEK M 360 I 4 H L L A A R B C O NO C L O U L S E V H E CA

E M H + BR R P T T

E SIL R I H VE Y R O 13 R O S M + C P N I ILL RI T r N O T G L ee I S LSON K k S NICHO N C 00

E NG I E A R . P Y R T W D LL S T G N I I I I N L LL

A H A IS C L O -

J QU T - C W Y D S A I 1484 U 1 C E E Y T K R R H G R A A R N T O C N B I D T B E IT R 361

W OO C O

S H F R C H O Y S 9 LL S T H H I ON P ST U AL O S H R O O C I S T

NG C T PANORAMA S

P NG + GY I D E N LL VILLAGE A P O

R T Pop 1,556 R K 8 N A T I A A U O S M O PANORAMA R LE G R C P A C E C R T 75 E S R 45 00 EE A T O I M IT N H VILLAGE + Pano- B IM LE AN

AG W rama R L UE P

IA 0 LIN Pop 1,556 E 38 Golf R 9

Course 3 S T E Y IN S LE NU T T

AGU -P I E D IT

I C LIN M P E P I S N O WA A RBONN T ET M E E A . C W L HEY 45 EN R A NE W A 2 1484 D MOHA W NO . R e K A W s 9 T T t P ILL S O CHEROK IS EE O H -

2 5 S . C

. U 3 T

8 75 &

L P S i HO

A t OT L t E C

K A G l F UE AND

e E I

o LINE F r E I

W k C R

H C S L ITE L I T H U C K N O T E I AK V K M OA I OA L INTERSTATE KHA E D R OA

N A ON TE A L OAK

I L I Y W D PAR L H KW T AY R I H T OO C A O R I W T W HOLL EE E YWOOD

D E H ILLCR O EST R B N T I E SUMM B X 45 IT ON O A R C C S K AY W a R SU NS E C n T ET 365 I O M R e LI IDG O T F L y E R I EE K P PROPOSED EB RD.

Y H IC IT VALL IN C OAK NURSERY EY CR E K E O T R B ON S N R + R A C ILL E O A H T R L N K L 00 E A ON L IN RS G EA County P TEX AS Garden Park Park N D UR R SER Cemetery I L F Y B EE AK A G R E IN T E L CR MERY K G W V MONTGO C IE O AN ILL W E 2.7 AIRP M L F OR COUNTY O A E E T W

L LE R P H

I K L

I K I AIRPORT A N ILL M B LONG O E R W S G E E SP 3083 B N R B

RI 3083 ING N O E GS r L D A ON N PI R 00

0.8 a P L P K

I n P N I + 3083 c EE

E H h R T

W S G C P N N R O EE L GR 385 I F N O G R S F A E E

D D L S T

R R

D K

O O OOD R OA

F W F 75 O TH T D

R F O J

N E R E

B F

OX F 2 F L O LLE . 0 C E HA Y B Y . R A 1 0 2 M D Y T T P . 1 S A 3 C K HA . S A FORK S R 0 TON O EE S A ING E R TI HUNT 0.1 T Y C N G TE L A OOK OO T R I JILL L AN S CR L Y A ON

BR BR E W C O L E OD L O T T 336 W HO ES H ILL 2.3 E D W H S O SS T D D MO HA S AN RE M C E L OO LD W R W MI DO O W PS HA F O IS S L IGH LL E A O C LL HY H G T H P W D S A N O N E Y M HO LL H R O E J L E C L E I R O S IG T ON N M T B EN M IL T L H C S S H L A FU A RT E N ES W N R R W O T I DEL GH R H 3 T FORK O I 70 2.0 PP T F P GH R R S I I + F R T L H O W W P A L O IE T E A 3083 I E R 0 V R T A W Z V L R S C S R L 105 E D W 0 T N 336 K Y W I I EE 0.7 W W E HA C I R M R I L HA 2 1 R LL Cimarron I E Y L .5 B N Y Montgomery LL L HO B M E O RR D Park K S ZEL E I ON R Park I W T R N S T GO T I D A M S A A N D A P T A 0 M G L P E A Y S K T 0 IR E E T + RR E ON G 1 P 0 . R UG AN O O O EE 8 M 1 2 105 CRYSTAL Y M E Y D L T LL R G 2.6 3 . I ES 6 L P R T C SS AG ILL BE - CR 1.3 R H YE B E R E F M N IN IE S A L ILL ER O K ISH B B D A C M L 300' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY IR N P H S HA A I C A L EE LE A NE D YB ST San PI P EN B E R H R N AY R L O O RT G A IL F O S M O L N Y O c Jacinto L C M A ER HA W HANG B B P I IM F S Z BAY R K E I D E S N I Y Country DO C N T R A A S E M 375 C ODD E + J S E 00 T Club N A W ELM H N S L C L - O C Y LS O

O I S T D I ST AD W N N N N RE SH S O G W A OD F

F W E 27' 123' 108' 42' T M O S W E H E J O I Y 0.3 R AY R LL LL 105 E S A A O S E H O I C T T C San A O LE F R T T V S 9 E Y W I S N N C E I S K S T A I Y DK S T E E A A A Jacinto T H S H L O S

A W L 1485 L R OAK O DA T D U R O Country O W O N D F 1' R C LIA O

TE A IL HA OOD 1.0 Club G H L R DA F 8 CR O ROBBIE R EE N TT R A E T R B W ER 7 Rosewood O M V D E C E T H The NA 6 The N ON ETTE E S VARIES K S S H IL CONROE T Cemetery T W S S E VARIES 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 15' 12' 15' Y W A A AND M H S Lake 1.1 R A M O TE Lake K I S AY E H VER S T OAK H W Candy S WILKINS W

D K M R I HU AHAN A 105 OOD LL CUT Cane R I A N A E R

E T C IN EE TE W AND I 336 F E DALLAS 3 L T H R M R AU R S W S 1.7 Park S T P A SHOOT S N G L O E D A

HO S

CR V E E KY E V ON SHLDR T G SHLDR S E CITY LEFT LEFT SHARED RIGHT RE HADO W N LE M R S P E G S A WACO N O R M R 1 U BB V . PS T T OAK E L B OX W Oakwood UR 1 I L 1 E I ING E Conroe K A TON . A IS E C TE 3 I ON G V WH O W E W NO T W E AUSTIN LL Cemetery RTH E G P E o Country LO L O RN O L E C A n A O IN TURN TURN LANE TURN N H R R P

M TE

t Club T NO Crawford GALVESTON PS

I L

N N K r O L 0.5 SAN 'C 105 L IL TA

H O I a F O E P WILDWOOD E AC M

r S O W LEWIS LLE Y

T A I

y I T W

A R

PROPOSED EB RD. E R IN U 0.2 1 R 13 . E T 3 S M NUGGENT M D P N AU 12 T EE AD 6 R M

S 3083 H DOG L L T L E L T IL D A 11 A A 105 P COCHRAN 0.8 H C S c LE S H H T I S E M LE E G Z B T S A CR F C Y DAV H T W NO Y 1 S OU . W I 6 L PHILLIPS M W E OO AK T O N 0.5 1 S BN SF L AY E B W 1 0 0 R R EET . OD C I T E N A 0.5 0 . T N E D I E 1 0.3 A P W M L R IE 105 R M H HIL V E H E H E GU S O IN LAK DAVIS E P I

L 1485 0 R

0.1 SIMONTON L Pop 27,610 A M . F 5 G AN O 0 F COLLINS R . L 1

E A

S K EL

S C 6 2854 I

D Y G T ER 5 M H E 0.5 O T CREEK G 4 M

T K WOOD N H H E O E T M AV M R E BN SF D DAD I H AV L c A O HICKS M Wiggins

P LA T D 2854 J IO S AD WE O CR GL HENRY T R FORK R

O IN PECAN L K PO U O P E E G Y S HARRIS

W IN AK O J V NE

O OK I T E C P Golden A D L L

E L K N K

R K T I I IA F R I E N

L A State N P O

A LE G AA AGN N RQUHA T OAK OAK R A EE U M R O

G Cemetery IN W T R P O T RK N M E T S O W AK L OOD E Y S W J E L W L 5 a I E ELL 7 AK G A S W J O S P Lewis T 2 4 T E k K E T R N I I A H H H . H O W L P T 2 W e OV E G IL D S 3 ROY HARRIS EL A Park A P M H LI E U I O T E A EL E TT R N R OA L 2 G E M L D A RR L ND M R T 1 1 S . HO K I F S 2 LL C A C P S T R U E ETT T SS UN R E H I A J E OOK AK Z L E C OV I R E L R B G O E E R L N NG E E

P I MA K HADY A I R S V RS Conroe E E E M G K B A Y W S O 2 E E AV Memorial C . E ON 2 R R ROCKY RS LE E T A Park ICK RD H R VE SIL 336 A 1314 Cemetery S N OD U O D LW E VA FOUR RO SDWLK AY L CORNERS 75 W I ON E R V DG C I E R E N P D LY BELVIDERE I O AR B IN I OA M G A IA K 2.2 L O HALO O K S O S A RIGG R A K TE K OS AGN MONTROSE F M k K ee A A r O L C T CR S L L

O I B P M M E

R H P O A A M Y

H A T PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION N U S D R SO R L O K T

O R TE GE A ID R L R OUGH L EL B INTERSTATE A T M R S CA C

AD O AD GL CIA N

I O E TR T RB A GH P EI H

N A CR E E R O C I R C-C H S S IVER R 336 R T S A

OO RESTRIPED WB RD. O L B LE PROPOSED EB RD. M 300' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY E A

E 3083 DO C E W IR R VE SH T I ER IV R 4 H AN F R

W L E .5 S IND O

S B R O 45

R L E E

D A V E C C R V O I ON IRE T R SH N A I CR 27' RI k L G V I ER R L SHI JOHNSON L RE P T ee A 2.0 EE N r 123' 108' 42' e I C k O P K a L 336 3

.8 2' 1'

E V

I 13.5' 12' 8' 12' 12' 15' 12' 15'

k R

ee r ON d C EXX K n

r EE LEFT SHARED RIGHT G R

C TURN LANE TURN

S AN e l a ON HT d EIG r CR e K v K END PROJECT il E EE

S E T R

CR I C

I L

C EXISTING ROW R C Y L E O

T I N

I GH A R T E C O T E S ON Y Y

AK E y R L J

O e A C

CO n N R ES C TOGA C C a A I N U C R Grand Lake N

N S T O BEGIN PROJECT E T - DECATUR O

T C R C H F O R I A F T I A V O L Y E W E

D L N L L R

A A J A TE AN U L F T

O S

L B A S

K R D Y

A LL

M R

L -

E A

C E EL M

P E W ND 1314

U S

AG A I M T O R O I

O C O L STONEWALL N

RR O

Y D N A E 45

- TT T

C G

B AG H RA T T X L CARRIAGE TON BR R E M I P M N C H A O E I

NGA LL I I T RR I E CUMBERLAND GO L G T N H COACH H IA EL A A

F R G T E B LL e I I E C E N l OA PLANTATION V

AG RIVER A M D I 0

. L L F

T A CANTER C R C R itt H R 3 P A E E

C A P N P R L A C S S E SAU N A AY U F A SDWLK PALOMINO T C L KL S F E HERMITAGE P H R IC T T HO N O I R IN N H V 1314 E Kid NO

T GUN R 336 S MOSSWOOD TON GAN T

COACHMAN R D 45 O H

O EWOOD RANG A O

O LL W I M M

OO S H S

A P N T L SYCAMORE W ET A R GN T S T

E ON R . . I E YS

V ON

SS P V

. . M IA SPRUCE M CR

L E O

A O U O R E S

E L R

N M

I G A M B E M AG A O S M I 6 L

E MULE H DHA O M S T M RI . E 6 - R ST C E R O IDHA R A R C PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

O T WILLOW L N ST A R S LEE E M N RUN EA T IGH E C R LINA O OOD E E : C B O E ANG B

W R K I D HO M L O ON

SS PS B O AN IM L S O O O R L BR C Y G K M EE RIN k B A ee M E CR SP Cr RESTRIPED WB RD. L A OBB U R W B-B

C N T T O OK D TE E :

O R LL O C PROPOSED EB RD. R S O N A M : BR S O H O

R UN G TA R R IN I R Y S I I V K

CAMEO OV A L E ND I E I AN RB L R RR B

E E : E XXON E R O NO G D N P E IO E A C T E AY M HAN TA - TILLY N IA R L h A L O A c L M K E n P Y a AGNO M F T E O H r M I B M A CR R I C P OOK LL O Y C

EBB N E ON LE BR O S S E E C PS M A D K SI S T A W F a R O R ILLE n M R y SS E e d E S S S n y E T a R } N I BOSTON C P HA P OOD Y RIPPLEW E C E

R C I RR T T

H E LEXINGTON K P S a W D I

R E K I P I I n S V E t YORKTOWN R KE A h D A L e O L L R E r L Y W ONG U E O E M R NC W E E C ND E PE Little I H E IND S V

E M M LUCILLE T K

T P OAD OUN Humble A O I I L } N E X D

GH RIVERBROOK Club W E D I D

R N S E L i O OAK R OAK ce EN S H WHITE O Lake N E E

M B

LL PIN S B R C L L

SHERBROOK A K O

C Y W H I Shadow

IT RR M C M EE W A

SHARON W 1488 V O I I A L K IV P DD Lake R ILL NU TRAILS N R A NA

W HAPPY S

D Y P R LE

E E

K OO A

N T F LL P rook R W

R ARBOR er B E INTERSTATE R ake Riv

L OAK K

HO AY

O B CUMBERLAND B W R

L OE A

R Y E D Y O ON G

C E N

D G ID D

NARCILLE R MA E GN R LE L C E FOREST OLIA

R E OOK O B I BR TT

OO N

U HO ON

S GLEN M

OAK W S F

R O GLEN W

E O & LE R S Y {

K H N YOU OD L S A L O A AV HOLLOW

AG O R

{

I N

0.4 TTE

H H V

LE S

ADD N R R :

HO E

B E D D

S B

B UD

S A

1 45 D

C A

S I

J HO P AC B ES

I I W G JON NT

OOD

D C

W A

C E

N LE

N O D T R C

I Y F

O R W

LL O R HO

BR O Gum

E S O R B

O HO LL A

K r

1 K Bridge

. a C

2 HO n U

P 3.4 c Pond

B h 1 IBIS E 1 LE

F P Appendix A

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. A-3 Appendix B

Appendix B

Shovel Test Locations

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. B-1 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

B-2 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix B

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. B-3 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

B-4 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix B

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. B-5 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

B-6 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C

Appendix C

Shovel Test Logs

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-1 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

C-2 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C SAA SAA Notes with pitted surfacewith pitted recently cleared of understory young trees, no ground visibility trees, no ground young cases dense amounts of manganese Cl Sa w/ colored pebbles and in some DS-1/DS-07 shallow SaLo underlain by SaLo underlain by shallow DS-1/DS-07 in flat wooded area, pine and oak mostly in flat D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters Excavator Date 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 Gravels w/ mottling w/ mottling gravels, roots gravels, Gravels, roots Gravels, Gravels, roots Gravels, Gravels, roots Gravels, Gravels, roots Gravels, dense gravels hovel Test Record Test S hovel Disturbances density w/ depth density w/ depth Gravels (plinthite, (plinthite, Gravels Gravels (plinthite, (plinthite, Gravels in density w depth Gravels , increasing Gravels dense gravels, roots dense gravels, mottled w/ 10YR 5/8 w/ 10YR mottled mottled w/ 10YR 5/8 w/ 10YR mottled Manganese)incresing Manganese)incresing mottled with 10 Yr 5/8 with 10 mottled of manganese,plinthite of manganese,plinthite of manganese,plinthite of manganese,plinthite of manganese,plinthite very dense, few gravels, gravels, very dense, few Gravels, roots, oxidation, oxidation, roots, Gravels, Gravels, roots, oxidation, oxidation, roots, Gravels, dense, high concentration dense, high concentration Dense, high concentration Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Texture 5/4 5/6 6/3 5/3 5/4 5/3 5/4 6/3 6/2 5/8 5/3 5/6 5/4 6/3 5/4 5/3 5/ 3 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 Color 5/4 W 50+ 50+ 50+ 50+ 0-40 0-50 0-30 0-50 0-25 0-30 0-25 30-45 50-60 25-60 25-50 40-50 Depth 60-70+ 266248 266298 266545 266363 266628 266700 266444 Easting 3352747 3352910 3352783 3352956 3352864 3352983 3352696 Northing ST # ST DS-07 DS-07 DS-07 DS-01 DS-01 DS-03 DS-04 DS-05 DS-06 DS-04 DS-03 DS-02 DS-02 DS-05 DS-02 DS-06 DS-06

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-3 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas Notes much like DS-14 much like of colored pebbles Deep SaLo with low density Deep SaLo with low Sa Cl unit was much more clayey and much more clayey Sa Cl unit was dense with large redish orange mottles D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters Excavator Date 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 with depth roots, pebbles roots, roots, pebbles roots, hovel Test Record Test S hovel Disturbances density increases pebbles, oxidation very dense colored very dense colored pebbles, oxidation/ pebbles, oxidation/ dense, few pebbles dense, few mottling w 5 YR 4/6 mottling increases with depth roots, gravels, density gravels, roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles, roots, very dense colored pebbles very dense colored pebbles Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Texture 5/4 6/4 6/4 5/4 5/4 4/2 4/2 6/4 4/2 6/4 4/2 6/4 5/4 5/4 6/4 6/4 6/3 4/2 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 Color 70+ 60+ 70+ 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-12 0-80 0-80 0-80 0-40 10-70 10-60 10-70 12-59 40-50 Depth 59-61+ 266155 266883 266934 266000 265962 266066 266964 266840 264008 Easting 3353175 3353150 3353150 3352647 3352570 3352570 3353061 3353092 3352608 Northing ST # ST DS-14 DS-14 DS-14 DS-16 DS-10 DS-11 DS-15 DS-15 DS-15 DS-13 DS-13 DS-13 DS-12 DS-12 DS-08 DS-09 DS-12 DS-09

C-4 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C Notes exactly like DS-17 unable to dig unable to DS-17 like exactly concreations or plinthite @ depth concreations or plinthite high concentration of manganese ST should have been fruther to the NE been fruther to should have ST silt 10YR 6/3, clay peds 10 YR 5/3- 5/2 peds 10 6/3, clay silt 10YR corridor with a buried line 46m too shortcorridor with a buried line 46m too but would have landed in a modifed utility landed in a modifed have but would D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters Excavator Date 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 dense oxidation hovel Test Record Test S hovel colored gravels colored pebbles Disturbances w/ oxidation and w/ oxidation pebbles,plinthite, pebbles,plinthite, Dense mixed clay clay Dense mixed 10YR 5/4, colored 10YR peds coaded in silt dense, few pebbles dense, few dense mixed, some dense mixed, copious amounts of mottling w/5 YR 4/6 mottling roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, oxidation, mottled with mottled oxidation, Manganese, very dense rootlets, colored pebbles rootlets, rootlets, colored pebbles rootlets, rootlets, colored pebbles rootlets, dense mixed w/ 5 YR 4/6 dense mixed dense mixed w/ 5 YR 4/6 dense mixed colored pebbles, extreamly colored pebbles, extreamly colored pebbles, extreamly colored pebbles, extreamly oxidation, few to no gravels to few oxidation, Cl Lo Lo Lo Cl Sa Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Lo fine Sa F Si Sa F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo Texture 5/3 6/4 4/6 5/4 5/6 6/4 6/4 4/4 5/6 6/4 5/4 6/4 6/4 6/4 5/4 5/4 5/4 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 Color 7.5 YR 7.5 0-5 80+ 70+ 38+ 0-10 0-10 0-18 0-60 0-70 0-25 0-25 0-80 10-80 10-38 18-45 25-40 Depth 25-30+ 264745 264129 264269 263968 263859 264082 264359 264450 264644 Easting 3352710 3352748 3352764 3352736 3352467 3352672 3352580 3352606 3352528 Northing ST # ST DS-17 DS-24 DS-24 DS-21 DS-21 DS-21 DS-16 DS-16 DS-19 DS-19 DS-18 DS-20 DS-25 DS-22 DS-20 DS-23 DS-22

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-5 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas Notes D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters Excavator Date 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 rootlets, few few rootlets, rootlets, few few rootlets, rootlets, few few rootlets, hovel Test Record Test S hovel light oxidation with 10YR 5/4 with 10YR dense, mottled Disturbances colored pebbles colored pebbles colored pebbles pebbles,plinthite, pebbles,plinthite, pebbles,plinthite, pebbles,plinthite, 10YR 5/4, colored 10YR 10YR 5/4, colored 10YR few colored pebbles, few few colored pebbles, few light oxidation at base light oxidation light oxidation at base light oxidation light oxidation at base light oxidation roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, roots, colored pebbles roots, oxidation, mottled with mottled oxidation, oxidation, mottled with mottled oxidation, colored pebbles, roots, colored pebbles, roots, rootlets, some pebbles, rootlets, Manganese, very dense Manganese, very dense very dense, mixed, trash very dense, mixed, dense, oxidation, mottled mottled dense, oxidation, roots, few colored pebbles few roots, Lo Lo Lo Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo Texture 6/2 6/4 6/2 6/3 6/3 6/3 7/3 5/3 6/4 6/4 6/4 6/4 6/4 5/8 5/4 5/3 6/4 Color 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 61+ 0-20 0-20 0-80 0-80 0-80 0-80 0-25 0-60 0-12 25-61 20-80 20-80 60-70 60-70 33-45 12-33 Depth Easting 265172 264977 265792 265881 264531 264873 265205 264092 265690 3352714 3352745 3352765 Northing 3352573 3352732 3352677 3352567 3352693 3352569 ST # ST DS-31 DS-27 DS-27 DS-27 DS-33 DS-33 DS-32 DS-32 DS-30 DS-29 DS-28 DS-26 DS-26 DS-25 DS-34 DS-34 DS-34

C-6 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C Notes understory with pig activity this area has been cleared of D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters D. Sitters N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle Excavator Date 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 dense gravels gravels gravels gravels 10 YR 7/6 10 10 YR 7/6 10 rootlets, few few rootlets, hovel Test Record Test S hovel dense, mottled Disturbances colored pebbles mottled,rootlets, mottled,rootlets, dense with depth few pebbles, roots few few pebbles, lightly few gravels and mottling and mottling gravels gravels and mottling and mottling gravels dense, lightly mottled 7/6, rootlets, oxidation 7/6, rootlets, gravels and mottling 10 10 and mottling gravels YR 7/6, rootlets,oxidation few to no pebbles, rootlets to few roots, few colored pebbles few roots, roots, few colored pebbles few roots, gravels and mottling 10 YR 10 and mottling gravels Lo Sa Sa Si Cl Cl Lo Cl Lo Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo F Sa Lo F Sa Lo Sa Cl Lo Sa Cl Lo Texture 4/6 6/3 4/2 6/3 6/3 6/3 5/8 5/4 5/3 5/3 7/2 7/2 7/2 7/2 6/2 6/2 5/3 6/6 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 Color 60+ 0-10 0-12 0-60 0-20 0-60 0-60 0-20 0-40 0-20 10-40 12-40 20-60 40-50 20-80 60-80 60-80 40-80 Depth 266511 265591 265399 265493 265542 266695 266600 266355 266406 Easting 3352737 3352786 3352581 3352612 3352912 3352861 3352603 3352598 3352959 Northing NS-1 NS-1 NS-2 NS-3 NS-4 NS-4 NS-5 NS-2 NS-3 ST # ST DS-37 DS-37 DS-38 DS-36 DS-36 DS-35 DS-35 DS-35 DS-38

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-7 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas Notes next to road road to next next to road and trash dump road to next N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle Excavator Date 5/1/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 roots rootlets oxidation oxidation compact, lots of roots lots hovel Test Record Test S hovel and oxidation some gravels, some gravels, Disturbances compact at 40cm, compact compact at 50cm, compact coompact at 50cm coompact 10YR 5/6, blocky soil 10YR heavy gravel, mottled with mottled gravel, heavy heavily mottled with 10 YR with 10 mottled heavily Very compact, with gravels compact, Very 3/2, oxidation, burned root 3/2, oxidation, some gravel and dead roots dead and gravel some Lo Sa F Sa Si Sa Si Sa Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Sa Lo Texture Si Sa Lo Sa Cl Lo Sa Cl Lo 7/2 7/2 7/2 5/3 7/2 5/3 5/3 7/2 6/4 7/2 5/3 7/2 7/2 7/2 4/4 7/2 7/2 5/3 Color 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 0-5 0-15 0-30 0-30 0-80 0-30 5-60 0-80 0-60 0-80 15-60 20-30 30-80 30-80 30-80 60-80 30-80 60-80 Depth Easting 266191 266913 266280 266098 265995 265958 265928 265935 266849 3352674 Northing 3352551 3352625 3353069 3352589 3352546 3352539 3353030 3352569 ST # ST NS-5 NS-5 NS-6 NS-6 NS-7 NS-7 NS-8 NS-9 NS-9 NS-14 NS-14 NS-10 NS-11 NS-11 NS-11 NS-13 NS-13 NS-12

C-8 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C Notes modern trash near the creek higher area in trees N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle Excavator Date 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 roots roots gravels gravels gravels some roots some roots hovel Test Record Test S hovel too hard to dig to hard too disturbed area disturbed area, Disturbances oxidation, some roots oxidation, mottled with 10YR 6/6 with 10YR mottled mottled with 10YR 5/6 with 10YR mottled 6/6 and 6/1, oxidation 6/6 and 6/1, and 10YR 8/2, oxidation and 10YR heavily mottled with 10YR with 10YR mottled heavily Very compact, with gravels compact, Very Cl Cl Cl Cl Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Lo Si Sa Lo Si Sa Lo Sa Cl Lo Si Sa CL Texture 7/2 5/6 5/3 7/2 7/2 7/2 7/2 6/4 7/2 6/6 7/2 6/4 7/2 5/6 5/2 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 Color 5 YR 6/6 5 YR 5/6 5 YR 6/6 5 YR 6/6 5 YR 5/6 0-5 45+ 45+ 60+ 0-15 0-45 0-60 0-20 5-30 0-50 0-80 0-80 0-60 0-80 0-50 0-45 15-60 50-80 60-80 50-80 Depth 267137 264116 264786 263918 264447 264242 264580 264039 266964 264048 264339 264496 Easting 3352479 3353114 3352577 3353189 3352735 3352720 3353270 3352708 3352534 3352633 3352670 3352685 Northing ST # ST NS-17 NS-24 NS-24 NS-21 NS-16 NS-16 NS-15 NS-19 NS-19 NS-15 NS-18 NS-25 NS-26 NS-25 NS-26 NS-20 NS-20 NS-22 NS-23 NS-23

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-9 Archeological Survey of the Loop 336 Improvement Project, Montgomery County, Texas Notes N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle Excavator Date 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 roots lots of roots lots very compact hovel Test Record Test S hovel Disturbances roots throughout roots disturbed top soil disturbed top compact at 40 cm compact mottled with 10 YR with 10 mottled 7/2 and 10 YR 5/3 7/2 and 10 some roots and gravels some roots some roots and gravels some roots compact, lots of gravels, of gravels, lots compact, Very compact, with gravels compact, Very Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Cl Sa Lo Sa Cl Lo Texture 8/4 7/2 8/4 5/3 7/2 5/6 6/6 4/4 7/2 7/2 5/6 7/2 7/2 5/3 7/2 8/4 7/2 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 Color 5 YR 6/6 50+ 0-10 0-10 0-25 0-80 0-50 0-80 0-25 0-80 0-60 0-80 0-40 10-30 10-60 25-80 25-80 60-80 40-80 Depth 265181 265113 265721 265012 264891 265661 265600 264699 265280 265262 265844 Easting 3352741 3352514 3352519 3352537 3352729 3352708 3352531 3352673 3352638 3352620 3352663 Northing ST # ST NS-37 NS-37 NS-27 NS-31 NS-28 NS-29 NS-29 NS-30 NS-30 NS-32 NS-32 NS-33 NS-34 NS-34 NS-35 NS-35 NS-36 NS-36

C-10 AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Appendix C Notes 1 meter from creek from 1 meter N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle N. Steinle Excavator Date 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 mottled mottled hovel Test Record Test S hovel Disturbances mottled with 10 YR with 10 mottled mottled with 10 YR with 10 mottled large root at 70 cm large root 7/2 and 10 YR 5/3 7/2 and 10 oxidation, no gravel oxidation, 7/2 and 10 YR 5/3, 7/2 and 10 compact, lots of gravels, of gravels, lots compact, compact, lots of gravels, of gravels, lots compact, Cl Sa Sa Sa Sa Si Sa Sa Si Sa Cl Sa Cl Texture 8/4 8/4 8/4 8/4 7/2 7/8 7/2 7/2 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 10 YR 10 YR 10 Color 5 YR 6/6 0-5 0-25 0-30 5-20 0-60 25-80 30-80 20-50 60-70 Depth 265548 265489 265385 265342 Easting 3352554 3352560 3352586 3352638 Northing ST # ST NS-41 NS-41 NS-38 NS-38 NS-39 NS-39 NS-40 NS-40 NS-40

AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. C-11 This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by: