Cultural Resources Assessment for the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, LLC Proposed Liquid Bulk Facility, Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington
Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution
Prepared by: Jennifer Chambers, M.S.
With contributions by: Melanie Diedrich, M.A., RPA
Revised by: Katherine M. Kelly, MES, RPA
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 March 11, 2014
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, LLC Proposed Liquid Bulk Facility, Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington
Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution
Prepared by: Jennifer Chambers, M.S.
With contributions by: Melanie Diedrich, M.A., RPA
Revised by: Katherine M. Kelly, MES, RPA
Prepared for: Karissa Kawamoto HDR, Inc. 500 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004
Submitted by: Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. 2611 NE 125th Street, Suite 202 Seattle, Washington 98125
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 March 11, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 1 Project Information ...... 1 Regulatory Context ...... 5 Background Review ...... 6 Environmental Context ...... 6 Cultural Context ...... 6 Previous Cultural Resources Studies and Sites ...... 12 Historic Properties Expectations ...... 13 Former Tidelands ...... 13 Upland Terraces ...... 14 Field InvestigationS ...... 15 Results and Recommendations ...... 26 References ...... 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Detail of the Hoquiam, WA (1994), 7.5-minute quadrangle map showing the APE...... 2 Figure 2. Proposed project plan map showing project components...... 3 Figure 3. Proposed project plan map showing subsurface test unit locations...... 4 Figure 4. The GLO survey map locates the project within tidelands (USSG 1893)...... 8 Figure 5. An 1889 (U.S. Fish Commission 1891) fisheries map shows that the project is in an area once known for resources such as soft clams (probably Mya arenaria)...... 9 Figure 6. 1953 USGS aerial survey with APE overlay (EarthExplorer 2014a)...... 9 Figure 7. 1971 NASA vertical reconnaissance aerial photography (EarthExplorer 2014b)...... 10 Figure 8. Results of a search of WISAARD for nearby cultural resource surveys and recorded archaeological sites...... 10 Figure 9. Map from USACE survey of potential dredge disposal area C (Munsell 1976)...... 11 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Overview of boring set up, view to the south...... 15 Photo 2. Overview of trench excavation, view to the north...... 16 Photo 3. Example of subsurface deposits encountered throughout the APE, view southwest...... 16 Photo 4. Example of surface gravels encountered throughout the APE...... 17 Photo 5. Fill deposits consisting of clay with organics (right) over silty sand (left)...... 17 Photo 6. Representative photo of native interbedded sand deposits...... 17 Photo 7. Example of man-made fabric material encountered below fill in much of the APE...... 18 Photo 8. Fibrous material prior to screening (left); macro shot after screening (middle); under 10x magnification of man-made felted material fibers (right)...... 18 Photo 9. Overview of northern portion of project APE. View to the northeast...... 19 Photo 10. APE overview, from the southeast corner to the northwest corner...... 21 Photo 11. APE overview, from the northeast corner to the southwest corner...... 21 Photo 12. Eastern shed, exterior north side, view to southeast...... 22 Photo 13. Western shed exterior north side, view to the southeast...... 22 Photo 14. Weigh station and scales, exterior, north side, view to the southwest...... 23 Photo 15. Overview of wharf, view to the southeast...... 23 Photo 16. Overview of STP, terminated at 2.1 m (7.0 feet)...... 24
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 ii
Photo 17. View east along extended portion of APE...... 25 Photo 18. Overview of project area, view to the west...... 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Subsurface Testing Samples ...... A.1 Appendix B. Sample Protocol for Discovery of Archaeological Resources ...... B.1
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 iii
INTRODUCTION On behalf of US Development Group LLC (USD), Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. (Tierra), was contracted by HDR, Inc. (HDR), to conduct a cultural resources assessment for USD’s proposed Liquid Bulk Facility Project (the project). The project, located in Section 10, Township 17 North, Range 10 West, Willamette Meridian (WM), proposes to develop a new crude oil storage facility at the Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 3 (T3) property located between State Route 109 (SR 109) and Grays Harbor in Hoquiam, Washington (Figures 1–3). This report has been prepared to assess the effects of the project on cultural resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. PROJECT INFORMATION Terminal 3 (T3) at the Port of Grays Harbor (the Port) is 150 acres in size and includes an existing 183-m-long (600-foot-long) concrete shipping terminal. Approximately 25 acres of the T3 site are currently leased by the Port to a private tenant (Willis Enterprises), which utilizes the property for storing and sorting logs and operating a wood chipping and processing facility. The remaining area of the property (a former mill site) is occupied by two metal buildings and a rail spur line, but it is otherwise currently vacant.
The liquid bulk materials would be delivered to the proposed facility via unit trains in fully contained liquid bulk rail cars, unloaded into on-site storage tanks, and then loaded onto barges or other marine vessels for delivery to refineries. A unit train consists of approximately 60–120 rail cars, each car with a capacity of 680–720 barrels, providing a total shipment volume of 41,000–87,000 barrels per unit train. The facility infrastructure and operations would be designed to receive and off-load a maximum of one full unit train every other day.
The general layout of the proposed rail and off-loading facilities includes four 20-car yard tracks and two 20-car off-loading tracks (120 rail cars total). In addition, a “run-around” track would be used to reposition the locomotive engines and to hold cars awaiting maintenance. The off-loading spots would be equipped with permanent rack access structures, each of which would support connections for a maximum of 40 rail cars (20 spots on each side of a rack). The off-loading spots and central header would be located within a secondary containment. The rack structures consist of elevated steel walkways with extendable access platforms used to access the tops of the rail cars. Off-loading would occur via 10-cm (4-inch) dry break connections, hoses, valves, and risers connecting the bottom rail car couplers to a central piping header. The rail cars would be off-loaded by gravity feed into the central header.
The liquid bulk materials would be stored in approximately six to eight aboveground storage tanks with secondary containment and internal floating roofs until a marine vessel (ship or barge) arrives. The total combined tank storage would be approximately 800,000–1,000,000 barrels. Construction of multiple storage tanks would allow the facility to accommodate interruptions in vessel schedules as well as changes in delivery volumes and would allow the facility to maintain consistent operations. Vessel calls are anticipated by barge and Panamax vessels occurring three or four times per month.
There are currently four mooring dolphins (three downstream/one upstream) off the existing concrete wharf. Up to four additional (two downstream/two upstream) mooring dolphins would be constructed to minimize vessel movements during liquid bulk materials transfer. No additional overwater expansion of the wharf is proposed.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 1
Figure 1. Detail of the Hoquiam, WA (1994), 7.5-minute quadrangle map showing the APE.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 2
Figure 2. Proposed project plan map showing project components.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 3
Figure 3. Proposed project plan map showing subsurface test unit locations.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 4
The existing trestle (supporting the Willis conveyor) and the wharf can accommodate the liquid bulk materials pipe rack needed to transfer the materials from the tanks to the vessels. Stormwater collection, drainage improvements, and spill containment measures would be added to the existing wharf, but no structural modifications are necessary.
To facilitate operations at the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, the Genesee-Wyoming Railroad would be permitting and supervising construction of an industrial lead track extension of their main line railroad system. This industrial lead track would extend from the current main line rail terminus, just east of Paulson Road, for approximately 396 linear m (1,300 linear feet) to the west. The industrial lead track would allow for the backing of rail car strings into the project site and provide additional rail car storage for other Port tenants. The identification of the industrial lead track is to account for potential indirect or cumulative environmental impacts for the purposes of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) only and is not to be considered a project component of the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal site development permitting.
Tierra understands the area of potential effects (APE) to be defined as the footprint of construction as described above and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Staging areas are to be located within the APE. REGULATORY CONTEXT This project was conducted, in part, to satisfy regulatory requirements for Section 106 of the NHPA and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A historic property is typically aged 50 years or older and is defined in 36 CFR part 800.16(l)(1) as follows:
… any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.
The procedures under Section 106 generally require the Federal agency involved in the undertaking to identify the area of potential effects (APE), inventory any historic properties that may be located within the APE, and determine if the identified historic properties located within the APE may be eligible to be listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) as follows:
… the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.
If NRHP-eligible historic properties are identified within the APE, then potential adverse effects to the historic properties must be assessed and a resolution of adverse effects recommended. Under Section 106, the responsible Federal agency must, at minimum, consult with and seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 5
Officer (THPO), as applicable, and consult with any affected or potentially affected Native American Tribe(s). BACKGROUND REVIEW Determining the probability for cultural resources to be located within the APE was based largely upon review and analysis of past environmental and cultural contexts and previous cultural resource studies and sites. Consulted sources included review of project files; local geologic data to better understand the depositional environment; archaeological, historic, and ethnographic records made available on the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database; and selected published local historic records and historic maps. Environmental Context The APE is situated on the northern shore of Grays Harbor in Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington. Grays Harbor is a large, shallow estuary to the Chehalis River. The regional geomorphology here was largely shaped by Pleistocene and early Holocene glacial events. During the Pleistocene, glacial melt and stream water overflowed through the lower Chehalis River, depositing outwash sands and gravels across the landscape. Further alluvial deposition also occurred as melt water from glacial lakes, formed at the southern margin near present-day Olympia and Tacoma, drained through the lower Chehalis River and deposited in Grays Harbor. At the end of the Pleistocene, sea levels began to rise, causing the lower Chehalis River to become inundated and eventually form an estuary. Sea levels are estimated to have risen nearly 110 m (360 feet) in the Grays Harbor area over the past 13,000 years; contemporary sea levels have been stabilized since 3,000 years ago (Peterson and Phillips 1992).
The Grays Harbor estuary is underlain by Eocene flow basalts, pillow basalts, and sedimentary rock derived from sediment accumulation. The surrounding Willapa Hills (south) and Black Hills (east) are comprised of upper tertiary sedimentary rock and basalt. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS n.d.), soils in the APE consist primarily of udorthents and, to a lesser extent, fluvaquents. Udorthents are typically located on tidal flats. Fluvaquents are typically located on flood plains, tidal flats, and deltas. Cultural Context The APE is located in the traditional territory of the Humptulips, which also includes the Hoquiam and Whiskah (Ruby and Brown 1986:83). These groups were often collectively called the Grays Harbor Indians (Ruby and Brown 1986:83). The Grays Harbor Indian land use areas included land north of Grays Harbor from near the middle of North Bay and as far east as Junction City, and included Hoquiam Creek and the Humptulips and Whiskah rivers (Ruby and Brown 1986:83).
The Grays Harbor Indians shared close affinal ties and relationships with the Upper Chehalis, Quinault, Shoalwater Bay, among others. In the mid-1850s, seven principle villages were reported on the north side of Grays Harbor, eight on the south side, and five on the lower Chehalis (Gibbs 1877, as cited by Schneyder et al. 2010). Few ethnographic villages were recorded along the lower Hoquiam River, although that is believed to likely be a function of oversight rather than absence.
In 1792, Captain Robert Gray entered what is now known as Grays Harbor. Gray originally named the bay Bulfinch’s Harbor after his ship’s owner but six months later Lieutenant Joseph Whidbey from the Vancouver expedition renamed the area Grays Harbor in his honor. William O’Leary is the
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 6
first Euroamerican credited to have settled on the south side of Grays Harbor in 1848. In 1853, territorial status was granted to Washington, which promoted further non-native settlement of Grays Harbor and the eventual development of towns, including Hoquiam. Early claims in the Hoquiam area included the James family in 1857, the Campbell family in 1858, and the Karr family in 1859 (Goings 2008). By 1859, most land along the lower Hoquiam River had been settled.
Non-native settlement had drastically affected the local Grays Harbor Indians. In 1854 and 1855, following negotiations between Indian tribes and the United States government, various treaties led to the abandonment of most southern Puget Sound villages and compelled the Indians to relocate to reservations. The Grays Harbor Indians had no such treaty and refused a reservation as late as 1873 (Ruby and Brown 1986:83). As a result of disease and assimilation, the Grays Harbor Indian population was reduced to 16 in 1885 and 21 in 1904 (Ruby and Brown 1986:83). The Grays Harbor Indians are represented by the contemporary Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (Ruby and Brown 1986:40).
In 1859, Hoquiam was officially platted on the west bank of the Hoquiam River at the confluence of the Chehalis River (Phillips 1977:64). In 1881, 300 acres of the James’ homestead were purchased at the mouth of the Hoquiam River to build a mill (Goings 2008). The mill, which became known as the North Western Lumber Company, became the impetus for the local area’s lumber industry history. The lumber industry attracted the development of railroads and roads, and subsequently jobs and commerce. Between 1889 and 1913, the population of Hoquiam increased from 400 to 14,000. The town boasted three theaters, nine churches, two banks, a public library, a YMCA, three hotels, numerous boarding houses, and dozens of up-scaled residences (“Hoquiam Has Ups and Downs Since First Post Office in 1867” date unknown). The lumber industry in Grays Harbor boomed in the 1920s with dozens of mills in operation, but, by the 1930s, nine had closed as a result of the Great Depression (Goings 2008). Little commercial development has occurred in Hoquiam since the 1930s. A review of historic maps and aerial imagery provides a series of illustrative snapshots of the landscape surrounding the APE and modifications which has taken place in the project area since the late 1800s (Figures 4–7).
A 1953 aerial photograph (see Figure 6) indicates that the area between Bowerman Field and South Adams Street consisted of mudflat and estuary, though it was bounded on the south by a causeway following the trajectory of what is now 5th Street, Airport Way and Moon Island Road. Within a few decades, aerial photography shows the development of a levee and dike system just north of the city retention basin at Moon Island and Paulson Roads and some trees and vegetation cover in the eastern portion of the estuary near South Adams Street (see Figure 7). Large portions of the project still appear to be wetland in 1971.
Archival research supports the inferences drawn from the maps and aerial imagery, providing the information that area surrounding the APE indicates the intertidal area was bulldozed and subsequently filled with up to 3 m (10 feet) of thick fill during an urban renewal project for the City of Hoquiam in the mid-1960s (Mullaley et al. 2009). Additional studies in the area have indicated that land filling (ca. 1950) consisted of at least 3 m (10 feet) of fill (Baldwin 2006). Despite these activities, the bulk of the landform upon which the APE is located was mapped as marshland as recently as 1976 (Figure 8), though this characterization may have been generous. The report of fieldwork conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at three proposed dredge disposal sites (Munsell 1976) shows the bulk of the subject property described as fill (Figure 9).
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 7
Figure 4. The GLO survey map locates the project within tidelands (USSG 1893).
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 8
Figure 5. An 1889 (U.S. Fish Commission 1891) fisheries map shows that the project is in an area once known for resources such as soft clams (probably Mya arenaria).
Figure 6. 1953 USGS aerial survey with APE overlay (EarthExplorer 2014a).
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 9
Figure 7. 1971 NASA vertical reconnaissance aerial photography (EarthExplorer 2014b).
Figure 8. Results of a search of WISAARD for nearby cultural resource surveys and recorded archaeological sites.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 10
Figure 9. Map from USACE survey of potential dredge disposal area C (Munsell 1976).
Munsell (1976:6) described the subject property as “…used extensively for nonconfined dredge disposal. Materials disposed on the area up until 1975 now reach a maximum depth of 2 m”.
In 1976, Rayonier purchased 6.9 ha (17.0 acres) of land in what is now referred to as Bowerman Basin, for use as a log storage yard (Friends of the Earth v. Hintz NO. 84-4176, 800 F.2 822[1986]). According to court documents, in 1978, the company began filling the wetland with wood waste under a shoreline conditional use permit. Though available documents do not provide a description of the method by which the land was filled and converted to log storage, typically, construction of this type in shoreline environments requires the installation of a semi-permeable, load-distributing geotextile fabric to prevent logs and heavy equipment from sinking into the unstable surface. General construction practices for the installation of geotextile fabric require some sort of surface preparation, which could include grading to remove any large obstacles, like stumps and boulders, and filling to bring any depressions up to the desired grade (Fiberweb 2006). The exposed fabric would have been covered by some sort of fill, which would have been compacted during the surface preparation process. In the case of the subject property, it may be that the application of organic fill in the late 1970s precluded the need to grade. Aerial imagery from 1983 provides ample support for archival documentation of land fill. While the extreme northern portion of the project area seems to be underwater, the rest of the project area has been stabilized enough to support the weight of stored logs, large transport vehicles, and industrial infrastructure.
Aerial photographs indicate that the wharf, storage buildings, and weigh station/scales were constructed in the early 1980s. A review of the Grays Harbor Assessor’s Data indicates that the wharf was completed in 1981.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 11
Previous Cultural Resources Studies and Sites Review of the WISAARD database (accessed March 17 and June 7, 2013) has indicated that with the exception of a 1975 pedestrian survey, the APE has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and that no archaeological sites, historic sites, cemeteries, or historic properties listed on the NRHP have been previously recorded in the APE.
The 1975 survey was conducted by the USACE) (Munsell 1976) and was in support of the search for a repository for dredge disposal. The location identified in the report as Area C, then owned by the City of Hoquiam, consisted of “all areas north of the existing dike [at Bowerman Basin] as far as the railroad tracks and State Highway 109 on the north side of the harbor area,” (Munsell 1976:4) and encompasses the entire subject project APE (see Figure 10). Munsell reported that the area had been used “extensively for nonconfined dredge disposal” and that disposed materials “now reach a maximum of depth of 2 m” (Munsell 1976:4). In 2006, a cultural resources survey was conducted approximately 610 m (2,000 feet) east of the APE prior to the construction of a new power substation (Baldwin 2006). Survey here determined that all substation project construction would occur within the at least 3-m-thick (10-foot-thick) deposit of modern fill, and no further cultural resources investigations were recommended (Baldwin 2006).
In 2007 and 2010, intensive cultural resources surveys were conducted in support of proposed industrial development in Grays Harbor, specifically the search for a location to construction pontoons for the State Route 520 Bridge (Onat et al. 2007 and Schneyder et al. 2010). The 2006 survey (Onat et al. 2007) took place approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) east of the project and resulted in the identification of the remains of a 1930s Hooverville community and industrial development (45GH179), which had been bulldozed over in the 1960s. No precontact deposits or materials were reported. The 2010 survey (Schneyeder et al. 2010) included the footprint of Paulson and Airport Roads; however, the bulk of the survey took place to the east of the subject APE. The survey resulted in the identification of multi-component site, 45GH179, which is located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 miles) east of the subject APE. 45GH179 consists of a historic logging property and a precontact fishing station (Mullaley et al. 2009). The historic component is located under approximately 0.3–3.6 m (1–12 feet) of historic and recent fill; the precontact component is buried beneath approximately 5.2–6.4 m (17–21 feet) of historic fill (Mullaley et al. 2009). Construction for this project was monitored by a professional archaeologist (Perkins et al. 2012). Widespread and deep filling over the predeveloped tidal flat was documented across the project area, typically with three discrete fill material types that ranged from 0.9–1.5 m (3–5 feet) of quarry spalls atop milled wood debris of variable thickness, atop hydraulic fill of variable thickness (Perkins et al. 2012). No buried predevelopment upland surfaces were identified (Perkins et al. 2012). No additional sites, deposits, or further indication of fish weir stakes eligible for listing in the NRHP were identified (Perkins et al 2012).
The 2010 report provided insight into both the local traditional resources and methods for interpreting subsurface conditions. Of specific import to the proposed project was the assertion that “the present bed of sweetgrass in the Bowerman Refuge (see Figure 1) may be a remnant of a formerly extensive spread of the sedge along the north shore of the harbor” (Blukis-Onat et al. 2007:60). The discussion of the Basin also included John R. James’ description of the “shoulder high red-topped sedge” in that area in 1857 (James ca. 1916, 1924, as cited in Onat et al. 2010). Later ethnographic research by James and Martino (1986), as well as interviews conducted by Blukis-Onat
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 12
et al. (2010), provide more detail. Pansy Hudson from the Hoh Tribe identified “the shoreline where the Bowerman Airport” as a sweetgrass bed, Blukis-Onat (2007:62) explained:
Such materials are still gathered in the Bowerman Basin area, about 4 miles west of the mouth of the Hoquiam River. Apparently the environment that favors these resources has been continuously impacted and these materials are diminishing in quantity and quality.
Blukis-Onat’s research team conducted extensive interviews with members of the Chehalis, Quinault, and Hoh tribes, as well as long-time residents of the Hoquiam area. The information gathered supports Ms. Hudson’s description of the Bowerman Basin, as summarized above, and includes discussions of stands of cattail (Typha latifolia), also present in the Basin, as important weaving materials. Tribal consultation conducted for the 2007 survey identified that, in addition to the Tribes interviewed, the Squaxin Island, Quileute, Shoalwater Bay, and Skokomish Tribes also regard Bowerman Basin as an important resource location.
In an earlier ethnographic review, James and Martino (1986) provided information about the following locations on the vicinity of the subject property,
“Several habitation sites are reported for the lower Hoquiam River. ‘A large Indian split- cedar house’ stood on the site where the Emerson Mill was built in 1882, just inside the mouth of the Hoquiam River …The Emerson Mill became the Northwestern Mill in 1884 (VanSyckle 1982:13, 250)” (James and Martino 1986:43). “The Hoquiam River had large salmon runs and sturgeon were fished off the Hoquiam River mouth in the middle channel between Cow Point and Grays Harbor City (VanSykle 1982:74)” (James and Martino 1986:43). “Remains of an Indian fish trap were identified south of the eastern tip of Moon Island, along North Channel. (Herman 1985). The south shore of Moon Island was identified as a site where weaving materials were picked prior to construction of the airport, when access became difficult (Susewind 1983)” (James and Martino 1986:43). “Grays Harbor City was a short-lived boomtown. The name is still used on NOAA maps. The area is more commonly known as Bowerman Basin. The Bowerman Basin continues to be used by Indians from all over as a site for gathering weaving materials, particularly for sweet grass” (James and Martino 1986:44). HISTORIC PROPERTIES EXPECTATIONS Based on review of the project scope and environmental and cultural contexts, the APE is considered to be located in an area of low to moderate probability for historic properties. Former Tidelands Historic maps indicate the project area has been subject to broad-scale fill events. Previous environmental and archaeological studies conducted within a 1.6-km (1-mile) radius of the APE have confirmed that at least 3.0 m (10.0 feet) and up to 6.4 m (21.0 feet) of fill have been deposited on the man-made waterfront landform. The authors could not locate any information that fill events prior to 1978 included surface preparation; however, modern
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 13
landscape modification likely included grading and filling prior to the addition of geotextile and compacted fill If intact precontact or early historic cultural resources were to be present in the APE, they would be expected to be located beneath the fill deposits. Descriptions of the successive episodes of fill indicate that all fill placements may not have included grading and filling at natural (premodern) surfaces. Dredge spoils, capped by logging waste and overlain with geotextile fabric and quarry spall, however inadvertently, may have served as a protective “blanket” over undisturbed archaeological deposits. Disturbed and/or re-deposited historic materials may be present within the fill, but would lack context and integrity. Types of cultural resources that may be encountered in the APE could include shell midden, wooden stakes, weirs, nets, traps, and/or other organic and inorganic shaped tools that could represent a range of fishing activities. Additionally, historic trash scatters, structural remains, and/or pilings may be present that would be associated with the local area history of logging, residential occupation, and/or transportation activities. Upland Terraces Archived historic maps do not represent the APE with fine enough detail to determine whether or how much of the northernmost portion of the property would have consisted of remnant natural terrace. Ethnographic records indicate that “traditional burials were above ground… in boxes or canoes. Some burials were in sandstone bluffs… or in canoes buried in sand dunes… Michael Luark noted in his diary in 1855 that a grove of tideland spruce was used as a burial ground” (Onat et al. 2007:22). Although the historic railroad and modern road construction have dramatically affected the landscape in this area, regional archaeological research has identified terrace landforms near estuaries and wetlands as likely locations for human burials. Historic-era landscape modification may have served to protect, rather than destroy, evidence of patterned human behavior in the precontact era.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 14
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Date(s): April 2, 4, and 15, 2013 Archaeologist(s): Melanie Diedrich Location(s): Tank Farm (Area A), Track Alignment (Area B)
Field investigation consisted of a combination of efforts, including visual reconnaissance, pedestrian survey, and subsurface testing. Visual reconnaissance consisted of observing topographical and other aboveground features that could provide indication as to the absence and/or presence of potential historic properties in the APE.
Pedestrian survey consisted of walking accessible areas of the APE to investigate the potential for any buried and/or aboveground historic properties to be present. Subsurface testing consisted of examining deposits sampled from the excavation of 2 geotechnical bores (B-1 and B-2) and 10 excavation trenches (T-5 through T-14) to confirm soil types and to investigate the presence/absence of buried archaeological material and/or deposits (Photos 1 and 2). Daily logs, maps, and photographs detailing construction and monitoring activities were maintained.
Fill deposits were encountered throughout the APE, which was expected considering the history of fill events in the APE and in greater Grays Harbor (Photo 3). The encountered depositional sequence in the APE appears to include at least 1.8 m (6.0 feet) of fill deposits that consist of quarry spall, silty sand, and timbers atop fine sand and mud (Photos 4–6). The presence of a man-made fabric material sandwiched between these two deposits (ranging from approximately 1.8–6.0 m [6– 20 feet] below the surface across the APE) validated the fill (Photos 7 and 8). No precontact or Historic-era archaeological deposits and features were encountered.
Photo 1. Overview of boring set up, view to the south.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 15
Photo 2. Overview of trench excavation, view to the north.
Photo 3. Example of subsurface deposits encountered throughout the APE, view southwest.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 16
Photo 4. Example of surface gravels encountered throughout the APE.
Photo 5. Fill deposits consisting of clay with organics (right) over silty sand (left).
Photo 6. Representative photo of native interbedded sand deposits.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 17
Photo 7. Example of man-made fabric material encountered below fill in much of the APE.
Photo 8. Fibrous material prior to screening (left); macro shot after screening (middle); under 10x magnification of man-made felted material fibers (right).
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 18
Date: January 22, 2014 Archaeologist(s): Katherine M. Kelly Location(s): Northern portions of Areas A and B
The lead author paid a visit to the site to observe HDR biologists conducting wetland delineation testing (Photo 9). In all cases, test units terminated in the quarry spall layer of fill, at approximately 46 cm (18 inches) below the ground surface. No archaeological deposits were observed. HDR Senior Biologist Mike Witter (Mike Witter, January 22, 2014, personal communication) was able to answer the lead author’s inquiries about basketry materials (information provided above) and site hydrology. Mr. Witter confirmed observations that the surface hydrology, at least, moves from south to north, trending west along the property. All runoff is conveyed through ditches to the outlets in the Bowerman Basin.
In conversations on site with the lead author, Witter identified abundant stands of cattail and isolated stands of the triangular stemmed Scirpus americanus in the Bowerman Basin refuge, as well as a small stand of Scirpus americanus to the east of the project (Mike Witter, January 22, 2014, personal communication).
No precontact or Historic-era archaeological deposits and features were encountered.
Photo 9. Overview of northern portion of project APE. View to the northeast.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 19
Date(s): January 23, 2014 Archaeologist(s): Katherine M. Kelly and Jennifer Hushour Location(s): Access road, building, storm water treatment pond (Area A), wharf (Area C), perimeter fencing (Areas A, B, C)
Field investigation consisted of a combination of efforts, including visual reconnaissance, pedestrian survey, and subsurface testing. Logs of the results of early field investigations were reviewed, as were the results of geotechnical testing conducted in the absence of archaeological monitoring (Table A.3). Visual reconnaissance consisted of observing topographical and other aboveground features that could provide indication as to the absence and/or presence of potential historic properties in the APE (see Figures 1–3). Pedestrian survey consisted of walking accessible areas of the APE to investigate the potential for any buried and/or aboveground historic properties to be present (Photos 10–14).
Mechanical testing of the Tank Farm, Rail Line, and Stormwater Pond areas in 2013 resulted in the identification of fill deposits (ranging from approximately 1.8–6.0 m [6–20 feet] below the surface across the APE) atop native deposits. In units B-1 and B-2, geotextile fabric was encountered at approximately 6 m (20 feet); the same fabric was encountered in units T-11, T-13, and T-14 at depths of 1.8–2.1 m (6.0–7.0 feet). In all cases, the fabric was atop the layer interpreted in the field as natural beach deposits. A review of the results of subsurface testing conducted in the absence of archaeological monitoring (geotechnical testing and wetland delineation) indicates that fill deposition patterns were consistent across the APE and can be readily distinguished from dredge spoils and natural beach deposits. As none of the subsurface test units identified any of the materials typically encountered on natural beach surfaces (e.g., shells), it may be that most of the material recovered at depth consisted of dredge spoils rather than disturbed beach deposits.
The new access road location was an area identified as untested, as it was represented by a small area with no apparent quarry spall–industrial fill mix. Because project efforts within these areas will not extend below the mapped and confirmed fill layer, excavated material was examined to confirm soil types and to identify the presence/absence of disturbed and/or re-deposited archaeological materials and confirm fill depths (Photo 15). Documentation of the investigation included recording the spatial coordinates of the excavated shovel test probe (STP), a written description of observed subsurface conditions, and photo-documentation of the APE and the STP (Photo 16).
Tierra archaeologists excavated the test unit in the approximate midpoint of the new access road, in an area just west of the quarry spall pad. The upper 0.6 m (2.0 feet) of recovered material was interpreted as imported topsoil, as it was uncharacteristic of the landform and lay atop a thin layer of compacted material. Soils encountered below the topsoil layer were characteristic of dredge spoils, in that they had the characteristics of fine silty clay with no inclusions and no shells or shell fragments. The unit was augered to 2.1 m (7.0 feet) and material was uniform throughout. The water table was encountered at approximately 1.2 m (4 feet), which was consistent with the level of water present in nearby drainage ditches.
No precontact or Historic-era archaeological deposits and features were encountered.
A summary of the observed soil sequences and composition in the geotechnical bores (see Tables A.1 and A.3), excavation trenches (see Table A.2), and auger/STP unit (Table A.4) is provided in Appendix A.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 20
Photo 10. APE overview, from the southeast corner to the northwest corner.
Photo 11. APE overview, from the northeast corner to the southwest corner.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 21
Photo 12. Eastern shed, exterior north side, view to southeast.
Photo 13. Western shed exterior north side, view to the southeast.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 22
Photo 14. Weigh station and scales, exterior, north side, view to the southwest.
Photo 15. Overview of wharf, view to the southeast.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 23
Photo 16. Overview of STP, terminated at 2.1 m (7.0 feet).
Date(s): March 07, 2014 Archaeologist(s): Katherine M. Kelly and Jennifer Hushour Location(s): Extended rail track, second storm water treatment pond (Area A)
Field investigation consisted of a combination of efforts, including visual reconnaissance, pedestrian survey, and subsurface testing. Pedestrian survey consisted of walking the revised portions of the APE and excavating one STP to confirm levels of disturbance and to investigate the potential for any buried and/or aboveground historic properties to be present.
A portion of the extended rail line location between the existing rail line and the canal was an area identified as representative of the level of disturbance which could be anticipated between these two linear features. Because project efforts within these areas will not extend below the mapped and confirmed fill layer, excavated material was examined to confirm soil types and to identify the presence/absence of disturbed and/or re-deposited archaeological materials and confirm fill depths (Photo 17). No subsurface investigation was conducted in the vicinity of the second storm water retention pond as previous subsurface testing was sufficient to characterize this portion of the project. Documentation of the investigation included recording the spatial coordinates of the excavated shovel test probe (STP), a written description of observed subsurface conditions, and photo-documentation of the APE and the STP (Photo 18).
The upper 0.6 m (2 feet) of recovered material was interpreted as fill and/or imported topsoil, as it was uncharacteristic of the landform and lay atop a thin layer of compacted material. The water table was encountered at approximately 0.6 m (2 feet), which was consistent with the level of water present in nearby drainage ditches.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 24
No precontact or Historic-era archaeological deposits and features were encountered.
A summary of the observed soil sequences and composition in the geotechnical bores (see Tables 1 and 3), excavation trenches (see Table 2), and auger/STP units (Table 4) is provided in Appendix A.
Photo 17. View east along extended portion of APE.
Photo 18. Overview of project area, view to the west.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 25
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tierra’s cultural resources assessment consisted of background review, field investigation, and production of this report. Background review determined the APE to be located in an area of moderate probability for historic properties. Field investigation included visual reconnaissance, pedestrian survey, monitoring geotechnical testing and wetland delineation, and subsurface testing.
Investigations identified a surface environment much disturbed by industrial activity, including construction of access roads and rail lines, and a subsurface environment that consisted of several layers of dredge spoils and imported fill. In units B-1 and B-2, geotextile fabric was encountered at approximately 6 m (20 feet); the same type of fabric was observed in units T-11, T-13, and T-14 at approximately 1.8 m (6 feet). In all cases, the fabric was atop a stratigraphic layer interpreted in the field as natural beach deposits. Additional archival research indicates that the noted absence of shell in these strata may indicate the soft, silty deposits should be interpreted as dredge spoils and/or reworked estuary sediments rather than undisturbed natural surfaces. It was not clear if the upper layer of geotextile fabric represents the shallower of two layers installed at the same time, or if the two layers represent two unrelated and discontinuous episodes of landscape modification. Given the history of landscape modification in the area, either alternative is likely. The geotextile fabric identified in the trench units was overlain by spalls and other stabilizing material, which is more in keeping with modern construction practices, while the fabric identified in the B units is overlain by material resembling dredge spoil or re-worked natural deposits.
Tierra’s archival and field research has identified the following:
There is no archaeological or ethnohistoric evidence to indicate that ground-disturbing activities within the upper layers of fill would encounter disturbed or re-worked cultural material. The fill in the northern portion of the site consists of a sandy loam, with no evidence of soil development, atop a thick layer of compacted quarry spall. Archival research indicates that until the mid-1970s, much of this portion of the APE was intact estuary or wetland. The rest of the subject property was filled with dredge soil sometime prior to 1976. Archival research indicates that most of the APE was filled in again in 1978 with logging debris, which was later capped with quarry spall and imported soil. The fill in the southern portion of the site consists of a thick layer of compacted quarry spalls in a sandy, loamy matrix atop material interpreted as dredge spoil. In both locations, geotextile fabric was identified as the base layer. There is some regional archaeological evidence that indicates that ground-disturbing activity below the fill layer at the extreme northern edge of the APE may have a moderate potential to encounter evidence of human burials. These areas would also be likely locations for evidence of short-term habitation sites or resource procurement. Given ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence in the Grays Harbor area of extensive use of elaborate fish trap systems, there is a moderate likelihood that ground-disturbing activities below the dredge spoils and geotextile fabric may encounter evidence of precontact fishing activities. There is also a moderate possibility that cultural materials may have been included with dredge spoils and thereby re-deposited on site. Although no evidence of use of the area for long-term habitation or any other examples of patterned human behavior in the precontact era was observed, oral histories make it clear that Bowerman Basin was, and remains, a prime source of basketry-making materials. This continued use of a specific place fits well within the concept of a Traditional Cultural
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 26
Property (TCP); however, background research has not found any suggestion that any formal move toward distinguishing the area in this way has been made.
Based on these findings, Tierra recommends:
None of the existing structures meet the minimum age requirement to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP), and none of the structures are distinguished in any way. Tierra recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for any proposed modifications to the wharf, the wharf’s associated structures, or the three structures on site. All ground-disturbing activities that take place below the fill layers should be conducted in the presence of an archaeological monitor until it can be determined that activities are unlikely to disturb archaeological deposits. Tierra recommends that the depth of fill layers across the site be defined as 1.2–1.8 m (4.0–6.0 feet) deep for the purposes of this caution, unless additional testing or the results of archaeological monitoring provides additional clarification. Given that fish traps, if present under the fill, would present as slim vertical elements, Tierra recommends that excavation for project elements such as the stormwater pond be opened as horizontal lifts, once it becomes apparent that excavation nears the interface of the fill and natural surfaces, and that these activities should be conducted in the presence of an archaeological monitor until it can be determined that ground disturbance is unlikely to encounter archaeological deposits. Tierra did not conduct an archaeological review of drainage plans, mitigation locations, or spill management locations. Given the observed surface hydrology, which directs flow from the subject property to drainage systems connected to Bowerman Basin, and the regional importance of the Bowerman Basin Wildlife Refuge for both cultural and natural resources, Tierra strongly recommends the development of drainage plans and spill prevention/management protocols, and that infrastructure associated with these protocols should undergo archaeological review. Tierra has no information about any Tribal or SHPO consultation conducted in connection with this project, and therefore strongly recommends that consultation should be initiated prior to any further project design. Official consultation with interested Tribal governments will need to be conducted regarding the impacts the project will have on important resources, as well as to identify any other concerns. These discussions can be formal and facilitated by the SHPO’s staff or initiated as informal staff-to-staff level conversations. If USACE permits are required for the project, USACE will conduct government-to- government consultation.
It should also be recognized that Washington State law provides for the protection of all archaeological resources under RCW Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, which prohibits the unauthorized removal, theft, and/or destruction of archaeological resources and sites. This statute also provides for prosecution and financial penalties covering consultation and the recovery of archaeological resources. Additional legal oversight is provided for Indian burials and grave offerings under RCW Chapter 27.44, Indian Graves and Records. RCW 27.44 states that the willful removal, mutilation, defacing, and/or destruction of Indian burials constitute a Class C felony. A recent addition to Washington legal code, RCW 68.50.645, Notification, provides a strict process for the notification of law enforcement and other interested parties in the event of the
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 27
discovery of any human remains regardless of perceived patrimony. The assessment of the property has been conducted by a professional archaeologist and meets or exceeds the criteria set forth in RCW: 27.53 for professional archaeological reporting and assessment.
In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during the development of the property, an archaeologist should immediately be notified and work halted in the vicinity of the find until the materials can be inspected and assessed. At that time, the appropriate persons are to be notified of the exact nature and extent of the resource so that measures can be taken to secure them. In the event of inadvertently discovered human remains or indeterminate bones, pursuant to RCW 68.50.645, all work must stop immediately and law enforcement should be contacted. Any remains should be covered and secured against further disturbance, and communication established with local police, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and any concerned Tribal agencies.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 28
REFERENCES
Baldwin, Garth L. 2006 Letter to Dr. Allyson Brooks, RE: Executive Order 05-05 Consultation, Hoquiam Power Substation DAHP Concurrence of Project Review. Drayton Archaeological Research Letter Report. On file at Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
EarthExplorer 2014a United States Geographic Survey Aerial flyover. Available at: http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Accessed on January 10, 2014.
2014b 1971 NASA Vertical Reconnaissance Aerial Photography. Available at: http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Accessed on January 10, 2014.
2014c National Park Service (NPS) 1983 Vertical Cartographic Infrared Imagery. Electronic resource, http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Accessed on January 20, 2014.
Fiberweb 2006 Industrial Yards. Available at: www.fiberweb.com. Accessed on June 20, 2013.
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz 1986 Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, No. 84-4176, 800 F.2d 822 (1986). Available at: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861622800F2d822_21465. Accessed on January 20, 2013.
Herman, Bob 1985 Personal Communication to Victor Martino, November 25. As cited in James and Martino 1986.
Gibbs, George 1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Department of the Interior, United Stated Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Part II, pp. 157-241. Department of the Interior, United Stated Geographical and Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Goings, Aaron 2008 Hoquiam—Thumbnail History, Essay 8652. Available at: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8652. Accessed on June 10, 2013.
James, John R. ca. 1916 Reminisces of John R. James. Ms. On file, Polson Museum, Hoquiam, Washington.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 29
ca. 1924 Memoirs of John R. James. Mss. James Family Archives. Bainbridge Island, Washington.
James, Karen, and Victor Martino 1986 Grays Harbor and Native Americans. Contract No. DACW67-85-M-0093. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle.
Metskers Map Company (Metskers) 1976 Township 17 North, Range 10 West, Willamette Meridian. Available at: historicmapworks.com. Accessed on January 20, 2014.
Mullaley, Meris, Tait Elder, Melissa Cascella, and Kurt Perkins 2009 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form 45GH179. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
Munsell, David 1976 Cultural Resources Survey of Three Sites on Grays Harbor, Grays Harbor, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle.
Onat, Astrida, James B. Phipps, Karen James, Kathryn Bernick, Timothy L. Cowan, and Lacosta Lykowski 2007 Cultural Resource Study Report of the Port of Grays Harbor Industrial Development District Parcel No. 1, Hoquiam, Washington. Report produced for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle. BOAS, Inc., Seattle.
Perkins, Kurt, Alexander Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, and Stacy Schneyder 2012 Archaeological Monitoring Report for State Route (SR) 520 Bridge Replacement and High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program Pontoon Construction Project, Aberdeen Log Yard. Report No. ICF 00156.11. ICF International, Inc., Seattle.
Peterson, C.D. and J.B. Phillips 1992 Holocene Sedimentary Framework of Grays Harbor Basin, Washington, USA. SEPM (Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication 48:273–285.
Phillips, James W. 1977 Washington State Place Names. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1986 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Sanborn Map Company 1916 Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington. Sanborn Map Company, New York.
Susewind, Marian I. 1983 Letter to William Brah. September 13, 1983: Comments on GHEMP DEIS. M.S. on file with the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Aberdeen, Washington.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 30
Schneyder, Stacy, Christopher Hetzel, and Thomas Barrett 2010 SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cultural Resources Discipline Report. Technical Report prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. ICF International, Inc., Seattle.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) n.d. Web Soil Survey, Grays Harbor County Area, Washington. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on March 15, 2013.
U.S. Fish Commission 1891 Chart Showing the Fisheries in Gray’s Harbor and Chehalis River, State of Washington: Season of 1889. Available at: http://content.wsulibs.wsu.edu. Accessed on January 20, 2014.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1994 Hoquiam Quadrangle, Washington. 1:24,000, 7.5-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C.
United States Surveyor General 1858 General Land Office Map, Township 17 North, Range 10 West, Willamette Meridian. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland.
1893 General Land Office Map, Township 17 North, Range 10 West, Willamette Meridian. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland.
Van Syckle, Edwin 1982 The River Pioneers. Pacific Search Press, Seattle.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 31
APPENDIX A. SUBSURFACE TESTING RESULTS
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.1
Table A.1. Summary of Results of Archaeologically Monitored Mechanical Testing (Boring) Depth Below Interpretation Level Sediment Description Surface (feet) Comments B-1 (UTM: 0430480E, 5203257N) 0–2.5 surface duff 2.5–5 dark gray to black sandy gravel modern fill 5–6.5 soft gray gravelly clay and silt composed of quarry 6.5–7.5 undetermined spall, lumber mill 1 dark black clay with abundant organics and/or scraps, and re- 7.5–9 carbonized material with a sandy interbed at the worked dredged base material thick black clay/silt with organics and bands of 9–20 sandy silt 20–21.5 2 man-made fabric material geotextile fabric interbedded sandy clay with some thin bands of 30–31.5 native beach small shell fragments 3 deposits, layers of thick black clay/silt with organics and 31.5–45 Late Holocene bands of sandy silt B-2 (UTM: 0430363E, 5202952N) 0–2.5 surface duff 2.5–5 dark gray to black sandy gravel modern fill 5–6.5 soft gray gravelly clay and silt composed of quarry 6.5–7.5 1 undetermined spall, lumber mill dark black clay with abundant organics and/or scraps, and re-worked 7.5–9 carbonized material with a sandy interbed at the dredged material base 9–17.5 very fine, black and organic-rich 17.5–19 2 man-made fabric material geotextile fabric 19–24 fine silty sand native beach deposits, 3 24–25.5 fine silty sands with tiny mica flecks Late Holocene 30–65 6 sands Pleistocene deposits 65 7 dense gravels glacial deposits
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.2
Table A.2. Summary of Results of Archaeologically Monitored Mechanical Testing (Trenching) Depth Below Interpretation Level Sediment Description Surface (feet) Comments TP-1 (UTM: 0430354E, 5203431N) intermixed light orange brown to gray 0–1 industrial fill deposits, brown till with some organics (timber) 1 water table at dark gray brown with gravels. some organics 1–6 5 feet (sawn and whole timbers) present fine gray silt clay with many small roots and 6–7 2 natural beach deposits organics TP–2 (UTM: 0430424E, 5203401N) intermixed orange brown to dark gray 0–2.5 brown fill with some quarry spalls (timber). hard packed industrial fill deposits, 1 water table at 2.5–3.7 dark gray brown with gravels. 5 feet dark gray brown with gravels; some organics 3.7 (sawn and whole timbers) present fine gray silt clay with many small roots and 6.5–7 2 natural beach deposits organics TP–3 (UTM: 0430437E, 520339N) 0–1 topsoil industrial fill deposits, 1 water table at 2–8 wood and sawdust fill with gravels/spalls 6 feet natural beach and/or 8–8.5 2 native/dredge deposits dredge deposits TP–4 (UTM: 0430481E, 5203285N) spalls/fabric below then orange-brown soil 0–3 (similar to topsoil in previous units) 1 containing spalls industrial fill deposits gray silty sand with spalls; less spalls with 3–4.5 depth 4.5–7 sandy re-worked natural beach 2 material and/or dredge 7–9 native/dredge deposits deposits TP–5 (UTM: 0430515E, 5203249N) 0–0.5 duff, dark brown with organics 0.5–2.5 1 mid-sized gravels, angular and sand industrial fill deposits 2.5–3 spalls, darker 3–4 2 black silt with gray clays (dredge) dredge deposits
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.3
Depth Below Interpretation Level Sediment Description Surface (feet) Comments TP–6 (UTM: 0430562E, 5203202N) no duff; spalls and gravel at surface industrial fill deposits; 0–2 1 intermixed with sawdust and wood area used for log storage; greenish gray sand and pressed rock and 2–3 water table at large spalls 3 feet natural beach and/or 6–6.5 2 native/dredge deposits dredge deposits TP–7 (UTM: 04303598E, 5203158N) 0–4 coarse angular gravels at surface industrial fill deposits, 1 mixed with dark brown sand changing to 4–6 area used for log storage greenish-gray, gravels and spalls 6 man-made fabric material natural beach and/or 6–7.5 2 native/dredge deposits dredge deposits TP–8 (UTM: 0430638E, 5203108N) 0–0.5 grasses, topsoil 1 sand and silt intermixed with wood debris, industrial fill deposits 0.5–6 bark, woody fibers, logs TP–9 (UTM: 0430677E, 5203067N) 0–2 gravels gray greenish gravels and silty sand with 2–6 1 industrial fill deposits some compacted rock 5.8 wood chips 6 man-made fabric material natural beach and/or 6–7 2 sand/mud fine gray sand, very wet, no shell dredge deposits TP–10 (UTM: 0430718E, 5203021N) 0–3 brown sediments with gravels 1 green-gray gravels and spalls with large industrial fill deposits 3–7.5 angular rocks 7.5 man-made fabric material clean fine gray sand with distinct natural beach and/or 7.5–8 2 interbedding and some organics dredge deposits
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.4
Table A.3. Summary of Results of Mechanical Environmental Testing (Reviewed by Tierra) Depth Below Interpretation Level Sediment Description Surface (feet) Comments B-3 (UTM: 430636.00E, 5203028.00N) 0–5 1 medium dense gray to black silty sandy gravel industrial fill 5–26.5 2 very soft dark gray to black organic rich silty clay estuarian deposits loose to soft gray interbedded silty sand with 26.5–58 3 estuarian deposits clayey silt 58–66.5 4 medium dense gray silty sand alluvium B-4 (UTM: 430328.00E, 5203204.00N) 0–5 1 medium dense gray to black silty sandy gravel industrial fill 5–20 2 very soft dark gray to black organic rich silty clay estuarian deposits loose to soft gray interbedded silty sand with 20–50 3 estuarian deposits clayey silt loose to medium dense gray silty sand with 50–90 4 scattered sandy silt interbeds from alluvium 55–85 feet very soft to medium stiff gray clayey silt/silty clay 90.0–152.5 5 estuarian deposits with scattered silty sand seams 152.5–170.0 6 very dense gray sandy gravel recessional outwash B-5 (UTM: 430489.00E, 5202987.00N ) 0–1 1 gravel roadway industrial fill very loose to loose gray silty sand with scattered 1–14 2 estuarian deposits clayey silt and silty clay interbeds 14–21.5 3 very loose to loose gray silty sand estuarian deposits very soft to soft gray interbedded sandy clayey 21.5–55 4 silt, medium dense sily sand layer from estuarian deposits 45.0–46.5 feet 55–61.5 5 medium dense gray silty sand alluvium
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.5
Table A.4. Summary of Archaeological Hand Excavation Testing Depth Below Interpretation Level Sediment Description Surface (feet) Comments STP 1 (UTM:10 T 430198.65E, 5203149.9N) sandy loam under a thin sod layer, soil is 7.5 0–2 feet 1 imported fill YR 2.5/3, moist with few gravels very fine, black silt; slight sulferous odor, no 2–4 feet 2 gravels or other inclusions; water table dredge spoils encountered at 4 feet depth may represent natural surfaces, but no very fine, black silt; slight sulferous odor, no buried natural surface 4–7 feet 3 gravels or other inclusions; transitioning to (e.g., vegetation layer, slightly micaceous silty, fine sand at 6 feet woody debris) identified in auger unit STP 2 (UTM:10 T 430198.65E, 5203149.9N) Disturbed mottled soil (largely sandy loam) 0–1.5 feet 1 imported fill under a thin sod layer, moist with quarry spall Fine grained silty loam, very sticky and 1.5–2 feet 2 claylike, compact. No gravels. dredge spoils Water table at 1.5 feet No definitive natural surface identified in hand-excavated unit. Disturbance extends at 1.6 feet least 3 feet. Depth may represent native soils, but no buried natural surface (e.g., vegetation layer, woody debris) identified in unit
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 A.6
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE PROTOCOL FOR DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 B.1
Protocols for Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, the following actions will be taken:
1. In work areas, all ground disturbing activity at the location will stop, and the work supervisor will be notified immediately. The work site will be secured from any additional impacts and the supervisor will be informed.
2. The project proponent will immediately contact the agencies with jurisdiction over the lands where the discovery is located, if appropriate. The appropriate agency archaeologist or the proponent’s contracting archaeologist will determine the size of the work stoppage zone or discovery location in order to sufficiently protect the resource until further decisions can be made regarding the work site.
3. The project proponent will consult with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) regarding the evaluation of the discovery and the appropriate protection measures, if applicable. Once the consultation has been completed, and if the site is determined to be eligible for the NRHP, the project proponent will request written concurrence that the agency or Tribe(s) concurs that the protection and mitigation measures have been fulfilled. Upon notification of concurrence from the appropriate parties, the project proponent will proceed with the project.
4. Within six months after completion of the above steps, the project proponent will prepare a final written report of the discovery. The report will include a description of the contents of the discovery, a summary of consultation, and a description of the treatment or mitigation measures.
Protocols for Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are found within the project area, the project proponent, its contractors or permit holders, must take the following actions consistent with Washington State RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055:
1. If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance.
2. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the County medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
3. The project proponent will prepare a plan for securing and protecting exposed human remains and retain consultants to perform these services.
4. The County medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the County medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to DAHP, which will then take jurisdiction over the remains.
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 B.2
5. DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected Tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected Tribes.
6. DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains.
Lead Representative and Primary Contact
HDR, INC. 500 108th Ave NE Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004 Primary Contact: Karissa Kawamoto, Environmental Planning Program Lead, 425-450-6249
U.S. DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300, Seal Beach, California 90740 Primary Contact: Kevin LaBorne, VP Business Development, (562) 799-5572
CHEHALIS CONFEDERATED TRIBES 420 Howanut Road; PO Box 536, Oakville, WA 98568 Lead Representative: David Burnett, Chair, 360-273-5911 Primary Contact: Richard Bellon, Cultural Resources, 360-273-5911 ext 1304
HOH TRIBE P.O. Box 2196; 2464 Lower Hoh Rd, Forks, WA 98331 Lead Representative: Maria Lopez, Chair, 360-374-3271 Primary Contact: Dob Boyce, Cultural Resources, 360-374-6090
QUINAULT NATION P.O. Box 189, Taholah, WA 98587 Lead Representative: Fawn Sharp, Chair, 360-276-8211 Primary Contact: Justine James, Cultural Resources, 360-276-8211 ext: 520
QUILEUTE TRIBE P.O. Box 279, La Push, WA 98350 Lead Representative: Tony Foster, Chair, 360-374-6163 Primary Contact: Deanna Hobson, Cultural Resources, 360-374-9651
SHOALWATER BAY TRIBE P.O. Box 130, Tokeland, WA 98590 Lead Representative: Charlene Nelson, Chair, 360-267-6766
SKOKOMISH TRIBE North 80 Tribal Center Road, Shelton, WA 98584 Lead Representative: Charles Miller, Chair, 360-426-4232 Primary Contact: Kris Miller, THPO, 360-426-4232 ext. 215
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 B.3
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE 10 SE Squaxin Lane, Shelton, WA 98584 Lead Representative: David Lopeman, Chair, 360-426-9781 Primary Contact: Rhonda Foster, THPO, 360-432-3850
DAHP P.O. Box 48343, Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066 Primary Contact: Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, 360-586-3080 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 100 West Broadway, Suite 3, Montesano, WA Lead Representative: Rick Scott, Sheriff, 360-249-3711
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE 1006 North H Street, Aberdeen, WA 98520 Lead Representative: Dan Burns, Coroner, 360-532-2322
Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 B.4
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author: Jennifer Chambers and Katherine M. Kelly
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, LLC, Proposed Liquid Bulk Facility, Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington
Date of Report: March 11, 2014
County(ies): Grays Harbor Section: 10 Township: 17 North Range: 10 West
Quad: Hoquiam
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes
Historic Property Export Files submitted? Yes No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No
TCP(s) found? Yes No
Replace a draft? Yes No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No
DAHP Archaeological Site #: Submission of paper copy is required.
Please submit paper copies of reports unbound.
Submission of PDFs is required.
Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.
Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened.
11/20/2