APPENDIX F: Cultural Resources Appendix Volume III – Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes and Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock– Appendix F – Cultural Resources Volume III APPENDIX F: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Potential Effects on Archaeological Resources within the LCA ARNTM Project Area Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District St. Louis Center of Expertise for Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections (CX-CMAC) F-1 Volume III – Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes and Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock– Appendix F – Cultural Resources Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Consultations............................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Physiographic Setting .............................................................................................. 8 4.1 Geomorphic History................................................................................................. 8 5.1 National Register of Historic Places ...................................................................... 10 6.1 Known Archaeological Surveys ............................................................................ 12 7.1 Project Area Reconnaissance ................................................................................. 13 8.1 Site Population ....................................................................................................... 14 9.1 Site Cultural/Temporal Affiliation ......................................................................... 15 10.1 Site Locations......................................................................................................... 17 11.1 Site Landform Associations as listed on Site Record Forms ................................. 18 12.1 Site Regional Landform Associations ................................................................... 18 13.1 Potential Disturbance from Project Features ......................................................... 25 14.1 Known Sites Endangered by Project Features ....................................................... 27 15.1 Testing Strategies ................................................................................................... 30 16.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ 31 17.1 References Cited .................................................................................................... 32 18.1 Addendum: Gagne Private Cemetery .................................................................... 33 19.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 33 20.1 History of Cemetery Location ............................................................................... 34 21.1 Brief history of the Gagne Brothers ....................................................................... 39 22.1 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................... 40 23.1 References Cited .................................................................................................... 42 List of Figures Figure 1. Physiographic sections along the lower Mississippi .......................................... 8 Figure 2. Historic delta sequence (after Weinstein and Gagliano 1985: Fig. 1) ................ 9 Figure 3. Map of proposed project area displaying listed National Register locations ... 11 Figure 4. Map of proposed project area with known archaeological surveys and sites ... 13 Figure 5. Map of routes taken by investigators during project reconnaissance ............... 14 Figure 6. Chart showing chronology of cultural periods and number of sites within project area so designated (in circle) ................................................................................ 17 Figure 7. Major site clusters within project boundary ..................................................... 18 Figure 8. Geologic map of proposed project area with known archaeological sites ....... 20 Figure 9. 1895 map of proposed project area showing known archaeological sites........ 24 Figure 10. Sites within 100 meters of proposed project features ..................................... 28 Addendum Figure 1. Current parcel lots in Houma, LA .................................................................... 33 Figure 2. Original land patents in Terrebonne Parish from 1830 survey......................... 34 Figure 3. Sketch map from Wesley House NRHP nomination ....................................... 36 Figure 4. 1924 Sanborn map of area near cemetery with modern shoreline indicated .... 37 Figure 5. 1940 Sanborn map of area near cemetery with modern shoreline indicated .... 37 F-2 Volume III – Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes and Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock– Appendix F – Cultural Resources Figure 6. Land segments annexed to Houma ................................................................... 38 List of Tables Table 1. NR listed properties within project boundary .................................................... 10 Table 2. NR listed properties within one kilometers of project area ............................... 10 Table 3. Metrics of archaeological surveys within project boundary .............................. 12 Table 4. NRHP status for sites within project boundary ................................................. 15 Table 5. Cultural/temporal affiliation of sites within project boundary .......................... 15 Table 6. Landform listed on State Site Record Forms ..................................................... 18 Table 7. Non-random distribution of sites verses geography of project area .................. 21 Table 8. Non-random distribution of sites verses geography of project area (single marsh category) ........................................................................................................................... 21 Table 9. Non-random distribution of survey tracks vs. geography of project area ......... 22 Table 10. Non-random distribution of sites vs. geography of linear survey area (proxy for bias) ................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 11. Non-random distribution of sites vs. geography of linear survey area (proxy for survey bias) with single marsh category ........................................................................... 22 Table 12. Non-random distribution of sites verses geography of project area from 1895 map .................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 13. Temporary ROW of project features ............................................................... 25 Table 14. Impacted geologic regions of combined project features ................................ 26 Table 15. Archaeological sites within 100 meters of proposed project features ............. 30 F-3 Volume III – Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes and Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock– Appendix F – Cultural Resources 1.1 Introduction In satisfaction of Section 106 of the NHPA, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between USACE-MVN, SHPO, and ACHP, has been developed to address the needs of LCA projects including Convey Atchafalaya River Water to North Terrebonne Marshes. A copy of the PA appears at the conclusion of this section. Federally recognized tribes, State tribes, local governments and other interested parties have been invited to participate as consulting parties. Copies of notification documents and lists of interested parties follow the Programmatic Agreement at the end of the cultural resources summary. The cultural resources portion of this feasibility study provides a synthesis of previous investigations in the project area that includes the locations and available information for surveys and sites reported, thus facilitating the expeditious planning and implementation of the resulting project. The primary purpose of cultural resources identification is to provide recommendations that will assist project managers, engineers, and other decision- makers in the avoidance of adverse impacts. The current feasibility study is limited to literature and records review and sample survey as set forth in ER 1105-2-100 paragraph 5 (Feasibility Phase Studies). There has been no evaluation and testing, intensive survey/inventory, or mitigation. Discovery of cultural resources and determinations of significance presented in this section are drawn from archaeological survey reports and site recording documents housed at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Both SHPO and THPO notification was undertaken to prepare concerned parties for future project possibilities (see correspondence section below). Regular meetings with SHPO and the Louisiana State Archaeologist were supplemented by email correspondence in an effort to work in concert with the interests of the State and its citizens. Visits to potentially impacted loci within the project area were undertaken over two days on May 6, 2009 and May 7, 2009. The standard for site significance adheres to the criteria