FINAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT CATLIN CEMETERY AND HISTORIC TRAILS PEABODY, KANSAS

Transcription

1 FINAL GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT CATLIN CEMETERY AND HISTORIC TRAILS PEABODY, KANSAS MARCH 2010 Prepared by: FPM Geophysical & UXO Services 5559 NW Barry Rd. #251 Kansas City, Missouri 64154

2 March 29, 2010 Mr. Brian Stucky P O Box 177 Goessel, KS Re: Geophysical Survey Report and Historic Wagon Wheel Trails Dear Mr. Stucky: In this letter report, we discuss the results of the surface geophysical survey conducted by FPM Geophysical & UXO Services (FPM) at the and the Historic Wagon Wheel Trail location on January 1 st and 2 nd, The scope of the project and area of interest were specified by Mr. Brian Stucky and members of the cemetery board. 1.0 Introduction The purpose of the surface geophysical survey was to determine the possible locations of child burials in and to potentially confirm the results of historic wagon wheel tracks previously identified with dowsing techniques. FPM investigated the site using a Geonics EM38-MK2 frequency-domain electromagnetic conductivity meter and a GSSI TerraSearch SIR System-3000 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). 1.1 The burial of Anna Mary Hornburger and Elizabeth Evers in early 1874 marked the initial establishment of the Hornburger family cemetery which would later become the. During the Russian Mennonite immigration in September 1874 sixteen (16) migrant children, under the age of 4 years old, passed away and were reportedly buried in the Hornburger family cemetery. Although written records exist stating the children were buried in the cemetery, there are no grave markers or plot map to indicate their location. is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the town Peabody in Marion County, Kansas. The objective at was to identify potential burial locations for these small children. Previous investigations on unmarked graves and historical research on FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 1

3 historical burials indicate that small children were consistently placed in shallow graves (~2-3 foot). The burial s age, a shallow burial, relatively small grave size, and antiquated, low-cost coffin construction (if any coffin was used) results in the likelihood that little to no intact pieces of the burial still exist. As a result, significant contrasts indicating the presence of unmarked burials were not expected to be highly observable. Historic Wagon Wheel Trails From the early to mid-1800 s, Marion County, Kansas was an active region for westward travelers particularly along the Santa Fe Trail. Just south of the infamous trail, additional historic trails were traversed within the Cottonwood River Valley. The Cottonwood River runs southwest to northeast generally south and adjacent to the current Highway 50 and south of Peabody, Kansas. The locations of historic wagon wheel trails were previously dowsed and mapped within the Cottonwood Valley approximately a mile and a half southwest of Peabody. The objective at this site was to identify possible features comparable in location with the dowsing results. 2.0 Survey Equipment, Quality Control and Field Procedures 2.1 Field Equipment EM38-MK2 Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic Conductivity Meter The Geonics EM38-MK2 frequency-domain electromagnetic system generates a primary electromagnetic field that induces eddy currents in the ground in response to its electrical and magnetic properties which create a secondary field that is measured by the receiver. The secondary field is used to approximate the electrical conductivity and magnetic susceptibility properties of the subsurface with range of the instrument. The EM38-MK2 consists of two receiver coils, separated by 1-m and -m from the transmitter, simultaneously providing data within effective depth ranges of -m and 0.75-m, respectively. Information on soil conductivity (quad-phase) and magnetic susceptibility (in-phase) is collected and recorded simultaneously. Conductivity, measured in units of millisiemens per meter (ms/m), is the ability of a material to carry the flow of electric current. Conductivity is useful for detecting differences in soil density or ground moisture. High conductivity often indicates moisture retention or relatively high percentages of clay. Conductivity anomalies originating from historic graves are a function of the physical properties of the casket, the age of the burial, the type of grave, and soil conditions surrounding the grave. In a grave shaft, soil porosity is greater which allows for greater moisture content and a subsequent increase in electrical conductivity. When buried metallic features are introduced, the response is significantly enhanced and often demonstrates negative values. Where a void exists, an enhanced but less pronounced signature would be expected. FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 2

4 Magnetic susceptibility, measured in units of parts per trillion (ppt), is a measure of a material s ability to become magnetized in the presence of a magnetizing field. Human activity tends to enhance the magnetic susceptibility of soils by disturbance, therefore, grave shafts are often more magnetic than nearby non-disturbed soils. The depth of penetration for magnetic susceptibility is limited to about m with the EM38. EM data were recorded on a Juniper Systems Allegro field computer. 2. GSSI TerraSearch SIR System-3000 GPR (SIR 3000) The GPR system operates by introducing a short radar pulse into the ground through an antenna. For this project, a 400-megahertz (MHz) antenna was used. The depth of signal penetration is a function of the transmitted antenna frequency, and the electrical conductivity of the media through which the signal propagates. The resolution (how small of a feature that can be resolved) of objects to be imaged is a function of signal frequency, geology, and interference caused by varying subsurface conditions. A high frequency antenna (400-MHz) can typically penetrate depths up to approximately 7-feet. Based on previous surveys with similar objectives, the 400-MHz antenna was determined to be the most suitable for this project. Propagation of the radar pulse depends on the electrical conductivity and permeability of the materials being investigated. A difference between dielectric constants of two media causes some of the radar energy to be reflected back to the receiver. Reflected radar energy is amplified, digitized and recorded on the SIR 3000 s hard drive. Quality Control The EM38 was allowed to warm-up for no less than 15 minutes. The instrument was monitored after the warm-up period to ensure that the electronics had stabilized, and that data spikes were not present in the data. Manufacturer guidelines were observed during setup and pre-survey functional checks to make sure the equipment was performing within expected tolerances. The SIR-3000 does not require a warm-up period; however, the system was evaluated at the site above known burial locations to determine optimal system parameters. 2.3 Field Procedures Survey control consisted of four survey grids established within with surveying flags. Three of the four grids were established among marked graves contemporaneous to the 16 child graves in question. The fourth grid was established along the west side of the cemetery adjacent to the chain link fence where buried features were identified during grave dowsing sessions. North-south trending transects at Catlin Cemetery were separated by 2-foot intervals in a 30- x 66-foot, 10- x 27-foot, 28- x 30- foot, and 30- x 46-foot survey grids in Grid 1, Grid 2, Grid 3, and Grid 4, respectively. A zigzag survey pattern was followed; north on one transect, south on the adjacent transect. FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 3

5 Figure 1 and 2 illustrates the geophysical survey grids and transect locations in Catlin Cemetery and the Historic Wagon Wheel Trail location, respectively. Figure 3 and 4 illustrates the survey grid and transects spacing for Grids 1 through 4 in. Small data gaps exist in Grid 1 and Grid 3 where transects either intersected or were obstructed by headstones. A data inference gap exists in Grid 4 adjacent to the chain link fence. All areas have been identified as such on the data and interpretation figures. 3.0 Geophysical Survey Results The most permanent remains of a body are the bones of the skeleton. As geophysical instruments are not generally capable of detecting bones, secondary indicators such as a soil disturbances or detection of a coffin or metal artifacts are suitable proxies that can be detected and interpreted to represent geophysical targets associated with buried human remains. Given the age and suspected small size of the children s graves, measurable contrasts were expected to be minimal. Discernible contrasts to clearly indicate the presence of historic wagon wheel trail locations were also expected to be minimal since the pasture had since been plowed and compacted by grazing livestock EM38 EM38 data were analyzed using the OASIS Montaj geophysical mapping system from Geosoft, Inc. Figure 5 through Figure 8 illustrate the EM38 data (conductivity and magnetic susceptibility) collected in the four grids in. Background values are represented as yellow/orange and blue in the conductivity and magnetic susceptibility data, respectively. A small scale range, -3 to 3 ms/m (conductivity) and 0 to 3 ppt (magnetic susceptibility), were chosen to display the anomalies (suspected to be subtle) in each grid. Contour lines generated from the conductivity data were overlain onto both datasets to better represent anomalous patterns associated with potential unmarked graves. Anomalies associated with headstones were not included with the data interpretations. Figure 5 illustrates the EM38 data results and interpretations for Grid 1. Features interpreted to indicate the presence of potential unmarked graves are labeled A K. EM responses of features C and G are most similar to the high amplitude responses observed at the Known Grave Location indicated on the figure. Both features exhibit strong magnetic dipole anomalies which are common over graves containing metal or where bolting may exist within or under a monument base. These features should be investigated for the possibility of buried headstones which may indicate the subsequent presence of an unmarked grave. According to the plot map, J. Burson s FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 4

6 burial should be located in the far northeast portion of the cemetery. Feature C may indicate the location of the buried headstone and associated grave of J. Burson. The extent of feature C also indicates the possibility that more than one burial may exist. No headstone was visible at the surface during the field investigation. Features labeled A, D, E, L, and K are highlighted based on observations of both the magnetic susceptibility and conductivity data. As stated earlier in the document, elevated magnetic susceptibility responses may be attributed to past human activity. Correlations made between observed anomalies in the magnetic susceptibility data to anomalies observed in the conductivity data indicate the possibility of a grave shaft or other manmade soil disturbance. Strong magnetic dipoles are not visible in these locations to suggest the presence of metal. Feature A is in close proximity to the headstones adjacent to Anna Hornburger. Although graves in appeared to lie west of their respective headstone, it is possible that Feature A is a burial east of the nearby headstone. The remaining interpreted features (B, F, H, J, and I) are also areas of interest based on their magnetic susceptibility and conductivity response. These locations are of lower probability that a burial may exist. EM38 processed data results for Grid 2 are illustrated in Figure 6. The elevated responses in both the magnetic susceptibility and conductivity data are slightly above background values and are not interpreted to be significant. Isolated locations of increased conductivity are likely the result of snow accumulation on the surface. The location of any possible unmarked burials, based on the magnetic susceptibility and conductivity data in Grid 2, could not be interpreted. Figure 7 illustrates the EM38 data results and interpretations for Grid 3. Feature A, a possible unmarked grave, demonstrates minimal elevated response in the magnetic susceptibility data due to the absence of buried metallic objects and lack of iron-rich minerals in the soil. However, soil disturbance is indicated by a substantial increase in conductivity. The interpretation is shown to be approximately 5-feet wide but due to line spacing for data collection the feature may extend approximately 2 feet in either direction. Feature B encompasses another region of increased conductivity but demonstrates little to no response in magnetic susceptibility. Unlike the isolated locations of increased conductivity in Grid 2 that were interpreted to be snow related, this feature also corresponded to responses identified in the GPR data (Figure 11). As a result, this interpreted feature is maintained to be an area of interest and its interpreted region is expanded to encompass the response in the GPR. Feature C demonstrates the strong magnetic dipoles similar to those observed in Grid 1. Likewise, this may indicate the location of a buried monument base or may be the edge of a metal containing burial that extends further east. No headstone was observed on the ground surface in the area of feature C during the field investigation. EM38 data results and interpretations for Grid 4 are illustrated in Figure 8. EM data collection for Grid 4 began approximately 8-feet east of the chain link fence due to the FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 5

7 instruments high sensitivity to metallic objects. Grid 4 proved to be more problematic as the area was historically used as a parking lot. As a result, data anomalies may be the result of the historic land use and cultural items rather than the result of unmarked graves. Due to the many features interpreted in Grid 4, and for ease of interpretation, the locations are ranked as low-, medium-, and high-probability of a potential unmarked grave. Some features have been interpreted from the GPR data (Figure 12) and exhibit very little or no anomalous response in both the magnetic susceptibility and conductivity. It is worth noting that the majority of elevated magnetic response and corresponding increased conductivity areas appear to be focused in one region. This area may be of particular interest for further investigation. Only features within the EM38 survey area are displayed in this figure GPR Historic burials of the mid 1800 s are often associated with a wood coffin and in some cases no coffin at all. Given the age of the burials in question, an intact coffin, body, or substantial contrast to the adjacent undisturbed soil is unlikely to yield significant GPR reflections. To thoroughly analyze what may be slight contrasting GPR data, GPR profiles in addition to gridded GPR data were analyzed using GPR-Slice v7.0 software. As shown in the three-dimensional figure below, the software integrates radargram profiles to produce horizontal depth slice maps of radar anomalies. Ideally, depth slice maps can effectively show the size, shape, location and depth of buried objects up to 7- feet. In this case, shortly below the depth slice, there is a loss of signal strength at approximately 3 feet below the surface. This is likely due to an increasing conductive clay layer at depth. As conductivity increases, the penetration depth of the radar signal decreases as the electromagnetic energy is dissipated. As a result, little to no energy is left to effectively reflect off of buried objects and data interpretation is limited to the upper few feet of the soil. The visual result of dissipated energy after data processing is inconsistent with a lot of static-like noise. Areas of lost signal are discussed in the text below and illustrated on the data and interpretation figures. In, it appears that the depths of clay layers are shallower in the southern portions of the cemetery thereby limiting the feasibility for actual grave detection at depth. FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 6

8 Radargram Profile Depth Slice Lost Signal N Figure 9 illustrates various 3-D GPR depth slices to demonstrate the different depths at which soil disturbances appear. Image 1 of Figure 9 includes three depth slices;.5-ft, -ft, and 3.2-ft. Surface irregularities were particularly effective at introducing undesirable noise into the GPR data which can sometimes produce anomalies that reverberate (echo) through the GPR section. This undesirable noise is evident in the upper depth slice and had the effect of complicating the subsequent interpretation by obscuring potential targets of interest. Lower depth slices (-ft and 3.2-ft) demonstrate less noise and can be more relied upon for grave interpretation. Feature B was initially interpreted from the conductivity data as a low probability area. Feature B is also observed in lower depth slices of the GPR data at approximately -ft and increases the confidence of an area of interest. Feature B is not observed beyond 3-ft due to the loss of signal depth penetration. This loss of signal penetration also limits the depth to which other possible burial features within the grid can be interpreted. As noted earlier in the document, measureable contrasts were expected to be minimal in the GPR data. The EM38 instrument measures an electromagnetic (EM) response to soil properties, whereas the GPR measures and records signal response from contrasting features. The depth, construction material, size, and shape of the burial feature can change the way radar energy is reflected back to the antenna; particularly the strength. While the EM response may be strong, the GPR signal response can be nearly nonexistent if a coffin has collapsed and fully deteriorated. The GPR is not sensitive to metal in the same manner as the EM38. For example, in the conductivity and magnetic susceptibility data, Feature C exhibited a strong magnetic dipole response which was interpreted as buried metal possibly representing more than one burial. In Image 2 of Figure 9, no GPR signal response is observed in the vicinity of Feature C. Interestingly, strong GPR signal responses are observed from the Hooker family burials of the late 1800 s, all of which demonstrated a strong magnetic response in magnetic susceptibility FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 7

9 data. The GPR and EM response can be attributed to the possibility of a more durable and possible metal lined coffin. Thorough analysis of the remaining GPR profiles and depth slices in Grid 1 indicated minimal signal responses at interpreted feature locations D, F, I, and K. No GPR signal response was observed in the low probability areas of H and J. GPR data for Grid 2 is presented in Figure 10. The location of any possible unmarked burials could not be interpreted based exclusively on the magnetic susceptibility and conductivity data in Grid 2. However, upon review of observable GPR signal responses and the subsequent comparison to the EM data, interpreted features A through C were identified. GPR depth slices for all displayed GPR images represent a depth of 2.6-feet. The GPR response noted in Image 1 of Figure 10 demonstrates the soil disturbance associated with the headstone of Henry Burkholder. This feature is not interpreted to represent an additional unmarked grave. Feature A demonstrates very slight variability in the conductivity data, however a substantial GPR signal response is observed in the radargram profile (Image 2). As the radar antenna travels over the surface, the radar signal (upside-down cone shape) is reflecting (or bouncing) off of buried features. When the radar antenna has technically passed the edge of the grave the cone-shaped signal is still reflecting off the grave; hence producing a halo around the true buried feature. In most cases, the anomaly may actually appear larger than what the feature actually is. This may be the effect seen in interpreted feature A in Figure 10. The box digitized around feature A in the GPR data encompasses what may be a grave shaft shown in the conductivity data. Feature A may be the unmarked grave location for Barbara Weaver. It is suspected that the large response of feature C is the direct result of accumulated snow (Figure A-2, Appendix A). However, due to the strong reflection observed in the GPR radargram (Image 3) and its comparable location to the elevated response in the conductivity data, it cannot be ruled out as a potential area of interest. Feature B is an isolated anomaly observed in both the conductivity and GPR data. Although the GPR signal response was relatively inconspicuous, its relationship to the small response observed in the conductivity data makes it an area of interest. It is worth further investigation for the possibility of a buried headstone or corner marker. GPR results for Grid 3 are illustrated in Figure 11. The effective depth of GPR signal penetration in Grid 3 appeared to be decreasing toward the south suggesting the decreasing depth of conductive clay layers in the soil. Radar signal penetration in Grid 3 appears to be limited to the upper -ft of the soil thereby greatly limiting the feasibility of interpreting features at depth. Features A through C were interpreted based on the conductivity and magnetic susceptibility data. Although there is a strong EM response for feature A and B, there is only small amount of corresponding response observed in the GPR data. As discussed for Figure 7, feature C represents strong magnetic dipoles which may indicate the location of a buried monument base or may be the edge of a FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 8

10 metal containing burial that extends further east. Unfortunately, no GPR response was observed within the effective range of depth. Feature D was interpreted based solely on discontinuities observed in the GPR data. Although the interpreted feature appears irregular in shape, the amplitude of the radar signal response appears similar in adjacent radargram profiles, thus suggesting a slight offset of approximately 1-ft. This offset can occur when data is collected in a zigzag pattern as performed in. This area was interpreted to be an area of interest based on the strength of the GPR response and slightly elevated responses observed in the conductivity data Figure 12 illustrates the GPR 400-MHz data processed for Grid 4 in. Data collection for Grid 4 was acquired in two sessions and was processed separately. Each session s data is labeled appropriately on the data and interpretation figure. The presence of firm and irregular snow cover on the ground were particularly effective at introducing the undesirable noise as seen in previous grids. As before, this noise had the effect of complicating the subsequent interpretation by obscuring potential targets of interest. Many GPR responses observed in Grid 4 were interpreted to represent noise rather than possible grave locations. A large amount of undesirable noise from the fence and fence foundation were also observed in the first line (2 feet) of the GPR data. The continuous reflections from the fence foundation masked potential grave locations within first two feet of the fence. To successfully process the remaining GPR data, the first line of GPR data was removed and is labeled as data interference in the data and interpretation figures. The effective depth of penetration in Grid 4 was limited to the upper approximately 3-feet. Overall, many credible GPR interpretations correspond nicely to responses observed in both the conductivity and magnetic susceptibility data in Grid 4. As observed in previous grids, some GPR interpretations had no correlation to the conductivity or magnetic susceptibility data but were selected based on the response strength and suspected authenticity (not associated with noise or subsurface debris). Image 1 highlights the small GPR responses were observed in the first line of processed data (Line 2 of collected data). Although these may still be reflections from the fence, they have been interpreted as potential areas of interest due to the possible correlation to previously dowsed features. These features have been ranked as having a low-probability simply due to their close proximity to the chain link fence. Three GPR depth slices from Session 1 are also shown in Image 1 of Figure 12 to illustrate how interpreted features are represented in the data at different depths. Strong GPR reflections are shown as red patches where as the weaker GPR reflections are shown as yellow/orange and occasionally green patches. A target may appear as a weak reflection in one time slice; however, the same target may show strengthened reflections in another time slice. For this reason, multiple time slice maps were reviewed for FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 9

11 thorough interpretations. Session 2 data is illustrated as depth slices in Image 2 of Figure 12. In this image, lines are drawn to their respective interpretations on the twodimensional GPR maps. Two-dimensional GPR maps for Session 1 and 2 are illustrated as the same depth of approximately -ft. The region of elevated geophysical response is again noted on Figure Historic Wagon Wheel Trails EM38 EM38 data were again analyzed using the OASIS Montaj geophysical mapping system from Geosoft, Inc. Figure 13 illustrates the EM38 data (conductivity and magnetic susceptibility) collected along the two transects at the proposed historic wagon wheel trail location. Background values are represented as yellow/orange and blue in the conductivity and magnetic susceptibility data, respectively. A small scale range, -3 to 3 ms/m (conductivity) and 0 to 3 ppt (magnetic susceptibility), were again chosen to display the anomalies (suspected to be subtle) for both transects. Very low amplitude responses were observed along the pasture transects. Very slight elevated responses do appear and have been interpreted as potential trails where the responses appear to align with the adjacent transect. These interpretations are weighted with low certainty due to the visible conditions of the surface. Grazing livestock can have an effect on the compaction and porosity of the subsurface thereby influencing the results of the EM measurements. A large scale 100% coverage geophysical survey should be conducted to determine if elevated responses display legitimate patterns across the site. 3. GPR GPR profiles were analyzed using GPR-Slice v7.0 software. Figure 14 illustrates three representative GPR depth slices from the two transects at the proposed historic wagon wheel trail location. Significant radar noise was created as the radar antenna passed over surface rocks, light brush, and the irregular, cratered surface. Although subtle reflections are observed amongst the strong reflections, trails could not be discerned with high confidence. Over 45 depth slices were analyzed to discern motion noise from possible authentic subsurface features. Additional locations of potential trails have been interpreted in Figure 14 and EM interpretations have been added to the figure. As mentioned in the previous subsection, these interpretations are weighted with low certainty due to site conditions. FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 10

12 3.2.3 Aerial Photography Previous experience with aerial photography reveals that vegetative tonal differences can help to identify spatial patterns often synonymous with historic human activity and land use. Although not included in the scope of work for this project, during preparation of the report figures, current aerial photography was analyzed for surface features representing possible evidence of historic trail locations within the Cottonwood River Valley. No features could be discerned to indicate the presence of wagon wheel trails on present aerial photos, however historical aerial photography may yield different results as changes in land use and ground cover can alter the visible surface for that given year. Historical aerial photography (hard copy format) may be available from the Marion County USDA field office in Marion, Kansas or can be ordered from the Aerial Photography Field Office in Salt Lake City, Utah ( 4.0 Conclusions 4.1 As discussed earlier in this document, significant data contrasts were not expected from the children s graves at primarily owing to the age and size of the graves. Grid 1 and Grid 4 revealed the greatest amount of soil disturbance in the EM38 data. In the remaining grids, data analyzed from the EM38 indicated very slight anomalies in the conductivity data except in locations of subsurface metal. Although GPR signal penetration was not sufficient for identifying features at depth in any surveyed grid, it was successful at identifying shallow features which may correlate to possible buried headstones. The GPR data was also successful in confirming the presence of interpreted features identified in the EM data. Alone, GPR results were not conclusive due to lack of signal penetration and motion noise generated by surface irregularities. Although it is not possible to conclusively confirm or refute the presence of the children s graves in, it is FPM s determination that the graves are more likely to be present in Grid 1. Although many anomalies exist in Grid 4, the likelihood of their association to historic land use is high. 4.2 Historic Wagon Wheel Trails Also discussed earlier in this document, significant discernible EM38 and GPR anomalies were not expected from the potential historic wagon wheel trail location. Data analyzed from the EM38 indicated very slight anomalies which were inconclusive based on the historical and current land use in the area. Similarly, GPR results were inconclusive to confirm the locations of the historic wagon wheel trails due to motion noise and inconsistent data. It is FPM s recommendation that a more thorough (100% coverage) FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 11

13 investigation be completed to identify large-scale features that may run through to the site. In order for the survey to be entirely effective, the surface should be leveled and clear of metallic debris. Irregular terrain, as existed during the field investigation, introduces numerous false reflections making subsequent data interpretation less effective. 5.0 Certification All geophysical data analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this document have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by FPM Geophysical & UXO Services senior geophysicists. March 28, 2010 Elizabeth Wilson-Agin Geophysicist, FPM Geophysical & UXO Services Kansas City, Missouri Date * This geophysical investigation was conducted using sound scientific principles and state-of-the-art technology. A high degree of professionalism was maintained during all aspects of the project from the field investigation and data acquisition, through data processing, interpretation, and preparation of the deliverable. All original field data files, field notes and observations, and other pertinent information are maintained in the project files and are available for the client to review. A geophysicist s certification of interpreted geophysical conditions comprises a declaration of his/her professional judgment. It does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, nor does it relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents, applicable codes, standards, regulations, or ordinances. FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 12

14 Kansas Local coordinates for Grid 1 squared from the NE corner of Anna Hornburger's headstone Site Location GRID 1 Site Location Legend Cemetery Entrance Chain Link Fence Local coordinates for Grid 2 squared from the NE corner of Henry Burkholder's headstone GRID 2 Geophysical Survey Grid Grid Datum Local coordinates for Grid 4 NW Corner determined by Brian Stucky Local coordinates for Grid 3 squared from the NE corner of Oliver Shupe's headstone and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas GRID 3 GRID 4 FIGURE 1 GPR and EM38 Grid Layout Note/Reference: All grids were squared from the northeast corner of the headstone as referenced on this figure. Grids are to scale, but locations shown in this figure are approximate. 1 inch = 22 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

15 Kansas Site Location Legend Geophysical Transects 1 inch = 83 feet Meters Feet Note/Reference: Transects are approximately 483 feet long located approximately 60 feet and 70 feet east of Mustang Road. and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 2 Historic Trail Location EM38 and GPR Geophysical Survey Transects Date: March 2010

16 Kansas Site Location Site Location GRID 1 GRID 2 Legend Grid Datum Data Gap Headstone Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 3 EM and GPR Survey Grids (Grid 1 and 2) Note/Reference: Grid 1-30 x 66 ft Grid 2-10 x 27 ft 1 inch = 8 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

17 Kansas Site Location Site Location GRID 4 GRID 3 Legend Grid Datum Headstone Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 4 EM and GPR Survey Grids (Grid 3 and 4) Note/Reference: Grid 3-28 x 30 ft Grid 4-30 x 46 ft 1 inch = 7 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

18 Conductivity (QP) - ms/m Known Grave Location A G B I F D E H J C Magnetic Susceptibility (IP) - ppt Known Grave Location A G B I F D E H J C Legend Grid Datum (Anna Hornburger) Interpreted Features Headstone Grid 1 Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 5 K K Grid 1 EM38 Results (QP and IP) Note/Reference: Grid 1-30 x 66 feet QP - Quad-phase (Conductivity) IP - In-phase (Magnetic Susceptibility) 1 inch = 8 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

19 Conductivity (QP) - ms/m Magnetic Susceptibility (IP) - ppm Grid 2 Legend Grid Datum (Henry Burkholder) Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 6 Possible scrap metal Grid 2 EM38 Results (QP and IP) Note/Reference: Grid 2-10 x 27 feet QP - Quad-phase (Conductivity) IP - In-phase (Magnetic Susceptibility) 1 inch = 3 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

20 Conductivity (QP) - ms/m B A C Magnetic Susceptibility (IP) - ppt B A C Legend Grid Datum (Oliver Shupe) Interpreted Features Headstone Grid 3 Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 7 Grid 3 EM38 Results (QP and IP) Note/Reference: Grid 3-28 x 30 feet QP - Quad-phase (Conductivity) IP - In-phase (Magnetic Susceptibility) 1 inch = 7 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

21 Elevated Response Area Elevated Response Area Conductivity (QP) - ms/m Magnetic Susceptibility (IP) - ppt Grid 4 Legend Grid Datum Geophysical Survey Grid Data Interference Interpreted Features High Probability Medium Probability Low Proability and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 8 Grid 4 EM38 Results (QP and IP) Note/Reference: Grid 4-30 x 46 feet QP - Quad-phase (Conductivity) IP - In-phase (Magnetic Susceptibility) Data interference from chain link fence and cement foundation 1 inch = 6 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

22 >! GPR Depth Slices Image 1.5 FT Conductivity (QP) - ms/m A A FT 3.2 FT B Grid 1 C C DD Reverberated Anomaly Legend Known Grave Location >! Grid Datum (Anna Hornburger) Interpreted Features E Headstone Geophysical Survey Grid No Observable Response Known Grave Locations (Hooker Family) Image 2 FF and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas GG 2.9 FT H II FIGURE 9 H J Grid 1 GPR Results (400-MHz Antenna) K 1 inch = 8 feet Note/Reference: Grid 1-30 x 66 feet Meters 5 Feet 15 Date: March 2010

23 GPR Depth Slice ft >! Conductivity (QP) - ms/m >! Image 1 Grid 1 Possible Grave Shaft A Image 2 A Legend >! Grid Datum (Henry Burkholder) Interpreted Features Geophysical Survey Grid and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation B B Peabody, Kansas C C Image 3 FIGURE 10 Grid 2 GPR Results (400-MHz Antenna) Losing Radar Signal 1 inch = 3 feet Note/Reference: Grid 2-10 x 27 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

24 >! Anomaly at 12-ft GPR Depth Slice ft A D B Grid 3 C Legend >! Grid Datum (Oliver Shupe) Interpreted Features Headstone Losing Radar Signal Geophysical Survey Grid >! Conductivity (QP) - ms/m A D B C Anomaly at 13-ft and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 11 Grid 3 GPR Results (400-MHz Antenna) 1 inch = 7 feet Note/Reference: Grid 3-28 x 30 feet Meters 4 Feet 12 Date: March 2010

25 Line 2 Session 1 Session 2 Image 1 FT 2.1 FT 3.5 FT Grid 4 Line 2 - Radar Anomalies Elevated Response Area Image 2 Legend Grid Datum (35ft South of Gate Corner) Geophysical Survey Grid Data Interference Interpreted Features High Probability Medium Probability Low Probability 1.9 FT 2.4 FT and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 12 Grid 4 GPR Results (400-MHz Antenna) Note/Reference: Grid 4-30 x 46 feet Data interference from chain link fence and cement foundation 1 inch = 6 feet Meters Feet Date: March 2010

26 Conductivity Magnetic Susceptibility Kansas Site Location Conductivity (QP) - ms/m Subsurface Metal Magnetic Susceptibility (IP) - ppm Subsurface Metal Legend Linear Subsurface Anomaly Geophysical Transects 1 inch = 31 feet Meters Feet Note/Reference: Transects are approximately 480 feet long located approximately 60 feet and 70 feet east of Mustang Road. Linear Subsurface Anomalies shown are from interpreted EM data. and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 13 Historic Trail Location EM38 Results and Interpretations (QP and IP) Date: March 2010

27 Depth Slice - 1 FT Depth Slice FT Depth Slice FT Kansas Site Location Reverberated Reverberations reflections from from near near surface buried object Legend Linear Subsurface Anomaly Geophysical Transects 1 inch = 31 feet Meters Feet Note/Reference: Transects are approximately 480 feet long located approximately 60 feet and 70 feet east of Mustang Road. Linear Subsurface Anomalies showed are from interpreted EM and GPR data. and Historic Trail EM and GPR Geophysical Investigation Peabody, Kansas FIGURE 14 Historic Trail Location GPR Results and Interpretations (400-MHz Antenna) Date: March 2010

28 APPENDIX A GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT CATLIN CEMETERY AND HISTORIC TRAILS PEABODY, KANSAS MARCH 2010 Prepared by: FPM Geophysical & UXO Services 5559 NW Barry Rd. #251 Kansas City, Missouri 64154

29 FIGURE A-1 Grid 1 (30 x 66 ft) FIGURE A-2 Grid 2 (10 x 27 ft) FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 1

30 FIGURE A-3 Grid 3 (28 x 30 ft) FIGURE A-4 Grid 4 (30 x 46 ft) FPM Geophysical and UXO Services March 2010 Geophysical Survey Report /Historic Wagon Wheel Trail 2