HomeMy WebLinkAboutArch Report CRC Tech Memo #1912A-1 Zimmerman Bulkhead
1416 NW 46th St., STE 105 PMB 346 Seattle, WA 98107
PHONE 206 855-9020 - info@crcwa.com
TECHNICAL MEMO 1912A-1
DATE: January 13, 2020
TO: Jenny Rotsten
Sealevel Bulkhead Builders
FROM: Margaret Berger, Principal Investigator
RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead
Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, Washington
DAHP PROJECT: 2019-10-07857
The attached short report form contains our final assessment for the Zimmerman Dock and
Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, Washington. Background research
and field investigation conducted by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC did not result in the
identification of archaeological sites or historic structures at the project location. No additional
cultural resources investigations are recommended at this time. If archaeological materials are
identified during project activities, it is recommended that project staff follow the inadvertent
discovery protocol described below. Please contact our office if you have any questions about
our findings and/or recommendations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author: Ian Kretzler
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Zimmerman Dock and
Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County,
Washington
Date of Report: January 13, 2020
County: Jefferson
Section: 34 Township: 30 N Range: 02 W
USGS Quads: Gardiner, WA Acres: Less than 1
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? 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
Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
• 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.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project,
Sequim, Jefferson County, Washington
Table of Contents
Management Summary ............................................................................................................ 2
1.0 Administrative Data ........................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Design .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Background Research ..................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Environmental Context ............................................................................................... 7
2.3 Paleoclimate and Vegetation ....................................................................................... 9
2.4 Archaeological Context .............................................................................................. 9
2.5 Native Peoples .......................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century History .............................................................. 11
2.7 Historical Records Search ......................................................................................... 12
2.8 Cultural Resources Database Review ....................................................................... 15
3.0 Archaeological Expectations ......................................................................................... 16
3.1 Archaeological Predictive Models ............................................................................ 16
3.2 Archaeological Expectations .................................................................................... 16
4.0 Field Investigation ......................................................................................................... 17
5.0 Results and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 17
5.1 Investigation Results ................................................................................................. 17
5.2 Cultural Resources Identified ................................................................................... 24
5.3 Conclusions, Findings, and Recommendations ........................................................ 24
6.0 Limitations of this Assessment ..................................................................................... 24
7.0 References ....................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A. Correspondence between CRC and Tribal Cultural Resources Staff ......... 31
Appendix B. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol ....................................................................... 34
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 2
Management Summary
This report provides a cultural resources assessment for the Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead
Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, Washington. Sealevel Bulkhead Builders
requested a cultural resources assessment ahead of construction activities along the Discovery
Bay shoreline. This assessment sought to identify archaeological sites and historic structures at
the project location and to evaluate the potential for project activities to affect cultural resources.
Background research and field investigation conducted by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC
(CRC) did not result in the identification of archaeological sites or historic structures at the
project location. Survey methods were considered adequate given the nature of proposed
development. No additional cultural resources investigations are recommended at this time. If
archaeological materials are revealed during ground disturbing activities, it is recommended that
project staff follow the inadvertent discovery protocol described below (Appendix B).
1.0 Administrative Data
1.1 Overview
Report Title: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead
Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, Washington
Author: Ian Kretzler
Report Date: January 13, 2020
Location: The project encompasses less than one acre along the northern boundary of
Jefferson County Tax Parcels 2341042 and 2341009. The project is located in the NE¼ of
Section 34 in Township 30 North, Range 4 West, Willamette Meridian.
USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map(s): Gardiner, WA (Figure 1)
Total Area Involved: Less than 1 acre.
Regulatory Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 3
Figure 1. Project location on the 7.5’ Gardiner, WA topographic quadrangle (USGS 2017).
1.2 Research Design
This cultural resources assessment was completed as a component of preconstruction
environmental review for the Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project. It sought to
prevent adverse impacts to cultural resources during ground disturbing activities by evaluating
whether archaeological sites and/or historic structures exist within the boundaries of the project.
CRC’s work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the
identification and protection of cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53, RCW 68.60).
The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing
archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP); the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits
knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves; and the Abandoned and Historic
Cemeteries and Historic Graves Act (RCW 68.60) calls for the protection and preservation of
historic era cemeteries and graves. This assessment was also completed in compliance with
SEPA, which outlines state guidelines for identifying and analyzing environmental impacts of
government actions. Information provided during SEPA reviews informs agency decision-
makers, applicants, and the public about whether and to what extent a given project will affect
the environment. This information may be used to alter project design to reduce identified
impacts or terminate a project to avoid adverse impacts.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 4
CRC’s investigation consisted of (1) review of available project information and correspondence
provided by the project proponent, (2) examination of local environmental, historical, and
archaeological datasets, and (3) field investigation. On December 10, 2020, CRC contacted
cultural resources personnel at the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe,
and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe on a technical staff to technical staff basis to inquire about
project-related information or concerns (Appendix A). This correspondence was not intended to
be or replace formal government-to-government consultation. Information provided by Tribes’
cultural resources personnel subsequent to the submission of this report will be included in a
revised version. This assessment considered comments from Tribes’ cultural resources
personnel, previous studies around Discovery Bay, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking,
the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and location
of historic properties at the project location, as well as other applicable laws, standards, and
guidelines (per 36CFR800.4 (b)(1)) (DAHP 2019a).
1.3 Project Description
Sealevel Bulkhead Builders requested a cultural resources assessment ahead of planned
construction activities at 214 Nebel Drive in Sequim (Figures 2 – 4). Project activities include
replacement of existing deck pilings, boat ramp, and bulkhead. Creosote deck pilings supporting
a deck will be replaced with steel pilings. A damaged concrete boat ramp measuring 89-feet by
8-feet will be removed by an excavator. A new boat ramp consisting of concrete panels with a
total footprint of 20-feet by 10-feet will be installed at and below mean higher high water
(MHHW). A 40-foot rock bulkhead will be installed landward of a concrete and rock bulkhead
east of the boat ramp. Once complete, the existing bulkhead will be removed. East of the
bulkhead, 104-feet of soft bank protection in the form of partially buried, anchored logs will be
installed landward of ordinary high water (OHW). Anticipated depth of ground disturbance is
approximately 5 feet below surface for the deck pilings, 1 foot below surface for the boat ramp
and anchored logs, and 3 feet below surface for the rock bulkhead. For the purposes of this
assessment, the area of interest for cultural resources (hereafter, “the project location”) is
understood to be the area described above and depicted in Figures 1 – 5.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 5
Figure 2. Design plan for proposed construction activities at the project location. Image courtesy of
Sealevel Bulkhead Builders, Inc.
Figure 3. Design plan for proposed construction activities at the project location. Image courtesy of
Sealevel Bulkhead Builders, Inc.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 6
Figure 4. Design plan for proposed construction activities at the project location. Image courtesy of
Sealevel Bulkhead Builders, Inc.
Figure 5. Satellite imagery of the project location.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 7
2.0 Background Research
2.1 Overview
Background research was conducted in December 2019 and January 2020.
Recorded Cultural Resources Present: Yes [ ] No [x]
No archaeological sites or historic structures have been documented at the project location
(DAHP 2019b).
Context Overview: The following context overview summarizes environmental, historical,
and archaeological information contained in local cultural resource reports; archaeological and
historical data from DAHP and the Washington Information System for Architectural and
Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD); ethnographic resources; geological and soils surveys
(e.g. USDA NRCS 2019; WA DNR 2019); historical maps and documents from the Bureau of
Land Management United States Surveyor General Land Status & Cadastral Survey Records
database; HistoryLink; Historic Map Works; HistoricAerials (NETR 2019); University of
Washington’s Digital Collection; Washington State University’s Early Washington Maps
Collection; and CRC’s library. This report’s discussion of geology, archaeology, and history at
the project location incorporates context information from CRC’s previous work in the Sequim
area (e.g. Berger and Kassa 2015; Berger and McNett 2016; Kassa 2016).
In this and subsequent sections, radiocarbon dates and age ranges based on those dates are
presented in calibrated calendrical years ago (cal BP). This notation indicates that the
radiocarbon date has been corrected using current methodologies. Other age estimates are given
as years BP (before present).
2.2 Environmental Context
Overview: The project is situated in northeastern Jefferson County, 12 miles east of Sequim, in
the unincorporated community of Gardiner. It is located on the western shoreline of Discovery
Bay and on the eastern side of Miller Peninsula. Sequim Bay is situated on the western edge of
the peninsula five miles west of the project. U.S. Highway 101 passes through Gardiner 0.5 mile
to the south. A freshwater pond with an outlet to the bay is located 500 feet to the west.
Elevation at the project ranges from 0 to 30 feet above sea level.
Geomorphology: The landscape of western Washington is a product of crustal deformation
initiated by the Cascadia subduction zone; repeated glacial scouring and deposition, most
recently during the Pleistocene; landslides, erosion, and deposition; and Holocene human activity
(Troost and Booth 2008). The project is situated within the Tsuga heterophylla (western
hemlock) vegetation zone on the western edge of the Puget Trough physiographic province near
its boundary with the Olympia Peninsula physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1973;
McKee 1972). The Puget Trough consists of a wide, partially submerged basin situated between
the Coast and Cascade Ranges. It was formed by repeated advances and retreats of the
Cordilleran Ice sheet during the late Pleistocene, approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years BP
(Thorson 1980; Troost and Booth 2008).
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 8
The ice sheet’s Puget Lobe most recently advanced during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
glaciation approximately 17,000 years BP. It reached Seattle 14,500 years BP and achieved its
maximum extent near Olympia 14,000 years BP. The present-day arms of Puget Sound were
created during this advance. The onset of climatic warming, an event that signaled the transition
to the Holocene, caused the ice sheet retreat north. The Puget Lobe retreated from Seattle
approximately 13,600 years BP (Booth et al. 2003). As the glacier receded, meltwater became
impounded behind the ice, forming a series of south-draining proglacial lakes. These lakes later
merged into Lake Bretz, which at its maximum extended from the southern margin of Whidbey
Island to Olympia. As the glaciers retreated, the lake receded via the Leland Spillway, which
flowed from Quilcene Bay to Discovery Bay and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Bretz 1913;
Thorson 1981, 1989; Waitt and Thorson 1983). Till, outwash, and ice-contact sediments were
deposited throughout the region during glacial retreat and meltwater recession (Booth 1994).
Washington’s post-glaciated landscape was devoid of vegetation, surficial organic soil horizons,
and an established drainage system, leaving it highly susceptible to erosion (Bethel 2004).
Massive landslides were triggered as stream incision undercut alluvial fans forming at the base of
steep slopes. Water, sediment, and organic matter collected in scoured depressions forming
lakes, wetlands, and alluvial lowlands. Upland areas experienced minimal post-glacial
deposition. They remain composed predominately of compacted glacial drift interspersed by
small lakes and peat bogs occupying surface depressions created during glacial retreat (Booth et
al. 2003).
Global sea level change, isostatic rebound, and tectonic activity, particularly during the
Holocene, have also affected the Puget Sound region. Sea levels began to rise after 8000 years
BP, reaching their current levels between 5000 and 1000 years BP (Eronen et al. 1987).
Stratigraphic markers of subduction-thrust earthquakes and associated uplift, subsidence, and
deformation have been observed at multiple locations on the Washington coast and around Puget
Sound. Approximately 1100 years ago, an earthquake originating from the Seattle fault zone
caused abrupt uplift and subsidence throughout the region (Atwater and Moore 1992; Bucknam
et al. 1992; Thorson 1989). Accounts of this and other seismic events are preserved in Tribes’
oral histories (Ludwin et al. 2005). Storm surges and tsunamis have contributed to postglacial
deposition near the project. At the head of Discovery Bay, sandy deposits laid down between
2500 and 300 years BP have been correlated with Cascadia subduction zone seismic events
(Williams et al 2005:62).
Mapped Surface Geologic Unit: The project is located within the boundaries of surface geologic
unit Pleistocene continental drift (Qgd). This geologic unit consists of Pleistocene till and
outwash clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders deposited during glacial activity. A small
outcrop of Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks (TM) is located immediately east of the project.
This geologic unit consists of Miocene sandstone and siltstone, Miocene-Oligocene mudstone to
sandy siltstone, Miocene-Eocene breccia, Eocene conglomerate, and Eocene-Paleocene lithic
sandstone. This is the primary geologic unit of the Olympia Mountains to the west. Localized
variations at the project may include nonglacial sediments, modified land, and artificial fill (WA
DNR 2019).
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 9
Mapped Soil Unit: No soil unit is mapped at the project location. Landward of the existing boat
ramp and bulkhead, soils are characterized by Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes.
This soil unit forms on colluvium residuum from sandstone and shale parent material. It is well
drained, and the water table is located more than 80 inches below surface. A typical profile
consists of four horizons: (1) gravelly silt loam from 0 to 9 inches below surface; (2) gravelly
loam from 9 to 30 inches below surface; (3) very gravelly loam from 30 to 38 inches below
surface; and (4) weathered bedrock from 38 to 42 inches below surface (USDA NRCS 2019).
2.3 Paleoclimate and Vegetation
The paleoclimate of the Pacific Northwest during the late Pleistocene and Holocene is defined by
four periods, which exhibit general trends based on variations in temperature and moisture
(Kopperl et al. 2016:37-38).
• 17,000 to 13,000 cal BP: the region was much cooler and drier compared to the present.
• 13,000 to 7000 cal BP: the retreat of glacial ice and increased solar radiation led to higher
temperatures, less precipitation, colder winters, and more severe summer droughts
compared to the present.
• 7000 to 5000 cal BP: cooler, moister conditions returned to the region, with temperature
ranges similar to the present. The current maritime climate regime of the Puget Sound
region was fully established by the end of this period.
• 5000 cal BP to present: climatic conditions have experienced short-term fluctuations such
as the Little Ice Age (500 to 100 cal BP) and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1100 to
700 cal BP).
Regional fluctuations in temperature and moisture supported different plant communities through
time. Following glacial recession and meltwater subsidence, landforms stabilized and vegetation
began to return. Newly exposed soils were first colonized by lodgepole pine, Sitka spruce, and
western hemlock. As temperatures rose between 12,000 and 10,000 cal BP, trees advanced to
higher elevations while lowland forests were dominated by Douglas-fir, red alder, and bracken
fern. These patterns continued into the early and middle Holocene. Present-day vegetation
communities emerged after 6000 cal BP. Western red cedar and western hemlock became
important components of mid-low elevation forests while Alaska cedar, mountain hemlock, and
silver fir emerged at cooler, moister higher elevations.
2.4 Archaeological Context
Overview: Thousands of years of human occupation in the Puget Sound region have been
summarized in a number of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical investigations over the
past several decades. These studies provide a regional context for evaluating the potential of
archaeological deposits at the project location (e.g. Carlson 1990; Greengo 1983; Kopperl et al.
2016; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Nelson 1990).
Human presence in western Washington extends to at least 14,000 cal BP, a period
corresponding with the most recent retreat of glacial ice in the region. Over the next six
millennia, Native peoples lived in small, mobile groups that moved seasonally between
productive hunting, fishing, and gathering locations. Archaeological evidence from the early part
of this period is largely constrained to isolated projectile point finds. Native peoples’ presence on
the landscape around 11,000 cal BP is evidenced by site 45KI839 in Redmond, which contained
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 10
stone artifacts situated at the interface of glacial and peat deposits under thick alluvium. It is
western Washington’s only well-stratified, excavated site from the late Pleistocene-Holocene
transition (Kopperl et al. 2015). The Manis Mastodon Site (45CA218) near Sequim also dates to
this period. Mastodon remains discovered in bog deposits at the site exhibit possible butchery
marks (Morgan 1999).
Middle and late Holocene sites are better represented in Washington’s archaeological record due
to the stabilization of sea levels and, in recent millennia, regional population increases. During
the middle Holocene, roughly 8000 to 3000 cal BP, Native peoples established a broader range
of residential and resource procurement site types and sizes. This shift coincided with decreased
mobility as groups developed specialized adaptations to local environments. Projectile points
dating to this period were identified at site 45CA426 in the Sequim area (Morgan 1995).
These trends continued into the late Holocene. Beginning around 3000 cal BP, the archaeological
record is characterized by diverse site and artifact types located in a range of environments.
Settlement patterns revolved around semi-permanent winter villages while resource harvest
relied in part on landscape management (e.g. prescribed burns), mass capture of resources (e.g.
through fish weirs), and storage technologies. Intensive harvest of and occupation near littoral
resources—activities that produced sizable shell middens—also emerged. The Ozette site
(45CA24) near Neah Bay dates to this period. The site contains several houses buried by a
mudslide, a unique preservation environment that facilitated the recovery of large quantities of
perishable artifacts and in-depth analyses of village life (e.g. Samuels 1994).
The arrival of Euro-Americans in the Pacific Northwest in the late eighteenth century marked the
beginning of the colonial period. The establishment of the Pacific fur trade and, later, the
transformation of Washington and Oregon into U.S. settler colonies, upended regional
demography and ecology. Native societies grappled with the impacts of foreign diseases, the
introduction of Euro-American plants and animals, and land seizure and removal policies. Amid
these changes, Native peoples acquired new materials and adapted settlement and subsistence
practices to emerging economic opportunities and settler incursion (e.g. Wilson 2018).
2.5 Native Peoples
The project is located within the ancestral homelands of S’Klallam peoples, whose territory
stretched across the northern Olympic Peninsula. During the nineteenth century, and for
centuries prior, S’Klallam peoples followed a seasonal round tied to the availability of resources.
During the spring and summer, families travelled across the landscape, primarily via canoe,
between seasonal camps situated in a variety of environmental zones. From these camps, they
harvested salmon, shellfish, and other marine resources, hunted terrestrial mammals such as elk
and deer, and collected berries, roots, and other plants. Many of these resources would have been
present near the project in and around Discovery Bay. These resources were dried and stored for
consumption during the leaner winter months or processed for manufacture of clothing,
medicines, baskets, and tools, whether stone, bone, or wood. As summer turned to winter,
families relocated to large cedar planks houses in villages situated along waterways. Winter was
a time for ceremonial activities and creating and strengthening social relations with members of
other villages via marriage, trade, and cultural exchange. Knowledge of these and other lifeways
continues to be passed down among contemporary Native peoples. Today, descendants of the
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 11
original inhabitants of the northern Olympic Peninsula are members of the Lower Elwha Klallam
Tribe, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Bridges et al.
2015; Gibbs 1877:167, 177; Gunther 1927; Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory
Committee 2015; Suttles 1990).
Dozens of S’Klallam villages were located along the northern coastline of the Olympic
Peninsula. The village k’wak’wíəł, or Kaquaith, was located on the northeastern corner of Miller
Peninsula, 2.7 miles northwest of the project (Suttles 1990). The village sq’waʔqwéʔyəł was
located at Port Discovery in the southwestern corner of Discovery Bay, 3.5 miles southeast of the
project (Gunther 1927:178; Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory Committee
2015:16). At least 100 people lived in this village during the early colonial period (Gunther
1927:177).
2.6 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century History
During the early nineteenth century, the Pacific Northwest emerged as a center of British and
U.S. exploration, mapping, and trade. In 1843, the HBC established Fort Nisqually in present-
day DuPont. For two decades, the fort was home to a diverse population of traders who
established relationships with local Native groups. Three years later, the Oregon Treaty ceded
imperial interest in the Pacific Northwest to the United States. The region quickly attracted
interest as a site of economic potential, religious proselytization, and territorial expansion. In
1850, the federal government passed the Oregon Donation Land Act, which attracted settlers to
the Pacific Northwest with the promise of free land. That title to the region remained held by
Native groups did not prevent the act from passage. The act transformed Washington and Oregon
into settler colonies, forms of government control that rely on the appropriation of Native land
and the removal of Native peoples (Veracini 2011). As the settler population increased, Native
peoples came to be seen as antithetical to the region’s development.
It was against this backdrop that Washington territorial governor and ex officio superintendent of
Indian affairs Isaac Stevens negotiated treaties with Native groups. In January 1855, Native
leaders representing S’Klallam, Twana, Skokomish, and Chemakum groups signed the Treaty of
Point No Point. The treaty transferred title over 400,000 acres of Native land to the United States
in exchange for small reservations and preservation of hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. In
the years following the treaty’s signing and ratification, Native families from across the Olympic
Peninsula were urged to relocate to a federal reservation established in Skokomish. Many refused
and continued to live in their homelands, in urban and rural settings (Bridges et al. 2015;
Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory Committee 2015).
In the 1870s, S’Klallam families lived in settlements around Dungeness and Washington Harbor.
As the local settler population increased, they faced repeated calls for their removal away from
settlers or to the reservation in Skokomish. In 1874, fifteen families responded by purchasing
210 acres east of the Dungeness River. The land was surveyed, subdivided, and named
Jamestown; it’s Klallam name is nəxwsnjyəʔáw’x ̣włč after the tall firs that grew nearby.
Following the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in the 1930s, Jamestown S’Klallam
families were urged and again refused to leave their homelands and community for reservations
far afield. The lack of reservation land, rather than privately-owned land, at Jamestown justified
the federal government’s termination of the Tribe in 1953. The Jamestown S’Klallam were
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 12
restored in 1981. Today, the Tribe owns over 1,000 acres in Clallam and Jefferson Counties and
maintains a range of self-determined social, cultural, and environmental programs (Bridges et al.
2015).
Enticed by the promise of free land under the Donation Land Act and the Homestead Act of
1862, settlers established sawmills, dairy farms, orchards, and shipping yards throughout the
region during the second half of the nineteenth century. These activities concentrated in Sequim
west of the project and in Port Townsend and Port Ludlow to the east, though a sawmill began
operating at Port Discovery in 1858 (Hunt 1970). In 1906, Herbert Gardner and his family
moved to the area from Minneapolis. Gardner logged 2,500 acres and began cultivating apples,
pears, and loganberries. The town was later named for Gardner, though it was spelled “Gardiner”
to avoid confusion with another town of the same name (Gardiner 2019). The region became
more accessible to commercial ventures following the construction of rail lines between Port
Angeles and Port Townsend in 1915. The opening of the Olympic Loop Highway (U.S. Highway
101) in 1931 and the formation of Olympic National Park in 1938 further opened the region to
outside communities and cemented its reputation as a destination for travel and recreation.
Logging and farming remain important local industries, as does tourism with recent
developments such as the establishment of Sequim Bay State Park, the Olympic Discovery Trail,
and the Sequim Lavender Festival drawing new visitors to the area (Arksey 2008; Caldbick
2015; McClary 2005).
2.7 Historical Records Search
Information about nineteenth and twentieth century land ownership and use at the project is
available via county atlases, topographic maps, and aerial imagery. In April 1841, the United
States Exploring Expedition surveyed Discovery Bay (Figure 6). The bay’s shoreline is depicted
as densely forested. A village, likely sq’waʔqwéʔyəł, is shown at the southern end of the bay. The
freshwater pond west of the project location is described as a “Watering Place.” No villages or
other cultural features are shown in the immediate vicinity. In 1859, the General Land Office
(GLO) conducted cadastral surveys of Discovery Bay to define or reestablish the boundaries and
subdivisions of federal lands so that land patents could be issued to settlers (Figure 7). The
project lies within Lot 2, a 74-acre parcel within Section 34. It does not depict any trails,
structures, or other cultural features in the immediate vicinity. A trail is shown cutting across
Sections 1 and 2 of Township 29 North, Range 2 West to the south. A decade later, the U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey mapped the project location (Figure 8). The pond is visible west of
the project, as is a north-south aligned trail between the pond and the project. The trail offers
evidence for use and/or settlement of the project vicinity by S’Klallam peoples and possibly
early settlers.
The project was part of a 139-acre land grant formally patented to Peter Mutty in 1888
(WAOAA 092347; BLM 2019). Mutty was born in Maine in 1848 and worked in Jefferson
County as a bartender in 1887 (Jefferson County Territorial Auditor 1887). Four years later,
Mutty had married and become a hotel keeper (Jefferson County Auditor 1891). Peter and his
wife Pauline and adopted son Louis lived in Port Townsend in 1910 (USCB 1910). Land
classification sheets from the turn of the twentieth century describe the project location and much
of Discovery Bay’s western’s shoreline as a cut area (Plummer et al. 1902; Rankine and
Plummer 1898), highlighting the extent of land clearing in the wake of settlers’ arrivals.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 13
Figure 6. U.S. Exploring Expedition map of Discovery Bay (Wilkes 1841).
Figure 7. Survey plat of the project vicinity (GLO 1859).
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 14
Figure 8. Survey of Discovery Bay (Coast & Geodetic Survey T-Sheet 1869).
According to a Jefferson County atlas, Lot 2 of Section 34 was extensively subdivided by 1952
(Figure 9). The project is split between two parcels. The western half of the project was owned
by A. Thiel, the eastern half by A. McLaughlin. Several structures are shown along the shoreline
in a topographic map made a year later (NGMDB 2019). Evidence of logging and other land
clearing is visible in aerial images from 1951. U.S. Highway 101 and Old Gardiner Road follow
their present-day courses and the immediate project vicinity is forested, likely with second-
growth trees. The local landscape has experienced additional land clearing and some residential
development in subsequent decades, though the project vicinity has remained forested. No other
major changes are visible in aerial imagery (NETR 2019).
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 15
Figure 9. Jefferson County atlas of the project location (Metsker Maps 1952).
2.8 Cultural Resources Database Review
A review of the WISAARD database identified cultural resource studies, precontact and
postcontact archaeological sites, and historic properties in the vicinity of the project. This
information provides details about the nature and likelihood of cultural resources at the project
location (DAHP 2019b). Two cultural resources assessments have been completed within one
mile of the project (Robinson 1997, 1999). These assessments were completed ahead of
widening of U.S. Highway 101 near Gardiner. South of the project, Robinson (1997) conducted
background research and field investigation, which consisted of pedestrian survey and shovel
scrapes. No archaeological materials were identified. Robinson (1999) implemented a similar
research program southwest of the project. Pedestrian survey and shovel scrapes along the
highway did not reveal evidence of archaeological materials.
No archaeological sites have been identified within one mile of the project. A segment of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad (site 45CA458) is located approximately two
miles to the west, and portions of the sunk sailing ship Warhawk (site 45JE202) are located in
Discovery Bay two miles to the southeast.
The Gardiner Cemetery is located 0.7 mile southwest of the project. It will not be impacted by
the project. No historic structures have been surveyed within a quarter mile of the project. No
historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Washington Heritage
Register are located within one mile of the project. No traditional cultural properties listed on
WISAARD are located within one mile of the project.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 16
3.0 Archaeological Expectations
3.1 Archaeological Predictive Models
The DAHP statewide predictive model uses environmental data associated with documented
archaeological sites to identify areas at which unknown sites may be found (Kauhi and Markert
2009). Environmental categories included in the model are elevation, slope, aspect, distance to
water, geology, soils, and landforms. The model contains five probability ranks: (1) very high
risk, (2) high risk, (3) moderate risk (survey recommended), (4) moderate risk (survey contingent
on project parameters) and (5) low risk. The model ranks the project as high to very high risk for
archaeological sites.
3.2 Archaeological Expectations
This assessment combines the above cultural resources database review and predictive modeling
results to evaluate the possibility that archaeological deposits will be encountered at the project
location. The project is located on the western shoreline of Discovery Bay and on the eastern
side of Miller Peninsula. Sequim Bay is situated on the western edge of the peninsula five miles
west of the project. U.S. Highway 101 passes through Gardiner 0.5 mile to the south. The
surrounding landscape has been shaped by natural processes for millennia. The advance and
retreat of glaciers carved out the Puget Sound trough between the Cascade and Olympic
Mountains. During the Holocene, sea level rise and tsunamis, many triggered by Cascadia
subduction zone seismic events, have deposited sediment and reshaped the coastline. Surface
geology at the project location is characterized by Pleistocene continental drift; local soils consist
of Cathcart gravelly silt loam.
Since 1850, the project vicinity has been altered by human activity. Land clearing, the
construction of regional road networks, and residential development have removed and/or
redeposited near-surface sediments and extant archaeological materials. Given the presence of
Pleistocene sediments at the project location, these activities—especially the construction of the
existing boat ramp, deck, and bulkhead—may have removed all archaeological traces of human
presence from the late Pleistocene through the onset of the colonial period.
Archaeological materials at the project location, whether disturbed or intact, may stem from
Native peoples’ historical use of the shoreline and/or post-1850 activities. For centuries,
Discovery Bay has been an important resource gathering and settlement area for S’Klallam
peoples. Known village sites are located along the bay shoreline, and the surrounding area would
have supported a variety of plant and animal resources. The presence of the freshwater pond
immediately west of the project may have made the project vicinity a particularly attractive
settlement and/or resource gathering area. The statewide predictive model confirms this
interpretation, classifying the project location as very high risk for archaeological sites. Physical
remains resulting from Native peoples’ use of the project may include but are not limited to fire-
modified rock scatters, shell middens, lithic materials, thermal features, bone tools or
implements, and faunal remains. If present, these materials will be encountered near the ground
surface.
The project’s post-1850 inhabitants may have also created archaeological deposits during land
clearing, construction, and/or occupation. Materials stemming from post-1850 use of the project
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 17
may include but are not limited to structural debris and hand-made and mass-produced ceramic,
glass, and metal objects. These objects generally do not meet eligibility criteria for the NRHP;
exceptions may include temporally diagnostic objects or finds associated with specific
individuals or events. If present, post-1850 artifacts will be encountered near the surface.
4.0 Field Investigation
Total Area Examined: The entire project location (less than 1 acre)
Areas not examined: None
Date(s) of Survey: January 9, 2020
Weather and Surface Visibility: Weather was party cloudy with temperatures in the high 30s
Fahrenheit. Mineral soil visibility was moderate in the eastern half of the project and low in the
western half of the project due to the existing deck and driveway.
Field Methodology: Field investigation consisted of pedestrian survey and subsurface testing via
hand excavated shovel probes. Pedestrian survey focused on the beach seaward of the concrete
bulkhead and on either side of the boat ramp. Circular shovel probes measuring 40 cm (16
inches) in diameter were manually excavated in areas of anticipated ground disturbance. Probes
were excavated to 50 cm (1.6 feet) below surface in the boat ramp and anchored logs portion of
the project or 20 cm (7.9 inches) into intact glacial sediments, whichever was shallower. In the
rock bulkhead portion of the project, probes were excavated to 110 cm (3.6 feet) below surface,
or 20 cm (7.9 inches) into intact glacial sediments, whichever was shallower. In the deck portion
of the project, probes were excavated to 170 cm (5.6 feet) below surface, or 20 cm (7.9 inches)
into intact glacial sediments, whichever was shallower. All sediments were screened through ¼-
inch hardware mesh. Probe locations were recorded using a handheld GPS unit.
Fieldwork conducted by: Ian Kretzler. Notes are on file with CRC.
5.0 Results and Recommendations
5.1 Investigation Results
Field Investigation: Pedestrian survey was conducted to assess surface conditions, document
archaeological materials, and identify areas suitable for subsurface testing. Project activities
include replacement of creosote deck pilings with steel pilings, replacement of the concrete boat
ramp, construction of a rock bulkhead, and installation of soft bank protection via anchored logs.
The seaward side of the project’s existing bulkhead consists of a rocky beach with little
vegetation. Structural debris, primarily concrete, brick, and wood pilings were identified eroding
out of the bank. A rectangular strip of mowed grass exists landward of the bulkhead in the
eastern half of the project. A fire pit and construction materials were identified in this area. A
concrete driveway and single-family residence exist south of the deck and boat ramp in the
western half of the project (Figures 10 – 12). Two carved wood poles stand on the project’s deck
(Figure 13). According to Nikki Zimmerman, the property’s previous owner commissioned the
poles around 1984 during the construction of the residence. Polynesian artists created the poles.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 18
No archaeological materials were identified during pedestrian survey.
Figure 10. Overview of the project location. View is to the northwest.
Figure 11. Overview of the existing boat ramp and bulkhead at the project location. View is to the southeast.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 19
Figure 12. Overview of the existing deck and bulkhead. View is to the southeast.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 20
Figure 13. One of the circa 1984 carved poles on the deck at the
project location. View is to the southwest.
Subsurface investigation was achieved via excavation of shovel probes. Four shovel probes (SP)
were completed, two in the proposed anchored logs section of the project, one in the rock
bulkhead portion of the project, and one on the western edge of the deck (Figure 14; Table 1).
Probe depths ranged from 50 to 90 cm below surface. In the anchored logs section of the project,
SP1 and SP2 contained medium to coarse gravelly sand with silt overlying brown with orange
mottles gravelly silty clay (Figure 15). These sediments likely represent glacial drift deposited
during the retreat of Pleistocene glaciers. Near the concrete driveway, SP3 and SP4 contained
medium to coarse gravelly sand with angular pebbles and cobbles likely introduced during
construction of the existing bulkhead (Figure 16). In SP3, these sediments were underlain by
beach deposits consisting of coarse gravelly sand with rounder and smaller rock inclusions.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 21
Fragments of bivalve and gastropod shells were common on the beach surface and were present
in varying quantities in all shovel probes. No dense concentrations of shell or possible
anthropogenic surfaces were identified at or below surface. Structural debris was identified in
SP3 and SP4, fabric in SP2. No archaeological materials were identified during excavation of
shovel probes. Probes were backfilled following documentation.
Figure 14. Shovel probes excavated at the project location.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 22
Table 1. Shovel probe findings at the project location.
Shovel
Probe
Probe Location
(WGS84 Zone 10 UTM
coordinates, +/- 3 meters)
Stratigraphic Description
(depths are centimeters below surface)
Cultural
Materials Found
1
506845.38 m E
5322434.87 m N
Southeastern end of
beach, anchored logs
portion of the project,
landward of existing
bulkhead
0-30: dark brown, loose, medium to coarse sand with
silt, 40% rounded and subangular medium to large
pebbles, 2% shell fragments (glacial drift)
30-50: medium brown with orange mottles, compact,
silty clay, 2% rounded and subangular medium to
large pebbles, transitions to a medium to dark brown
silty sand at ~50 cm below surface (glacial drift)
None
2
506836.99 m E
5322439.22 m N
Approximately 10 meters
northwest of SP1, in
anchored logs portion of
the project, landward of
existing bulkhead
0-25: dark brown, loose, medium silty sand, 30%
rounded and subangular medium pebbles to small
cobbles, 2% shell fragments (glacial drift)
25-60: dark grayish and yellowish brown, firm, coarse
silty sand, pockets of gray to orange mottled silty
clay, 40% rounded and subangular small pebbles to
small cobbles, 1% shell fragments (beach deposit and
glacial drift)
Red knit fabric in
wall of probe, ~20
cm below surface
3
506825.34 m E
5322445.83 m N
Immediately southeast of
concrete driveway, in
rock bulkhead portion of
the project, landward of
existing bulkhead
0-25: dark brown, loose, medium to coarse sand with
silt, 50% rounded to angular medium pebbles to small
cobbles, 3% shell fragments, angular rocks likely
introduced during bulkhead construction (disturbed
glacial drift)
25-35: grayish brown, loose, medium to coarse sand,
50% rounded to angular medium pebbles to small
cobbles, 3% shell fragments, angular rocks likely
introduced during bulkhead construction (disturbed
glacial drift)
35-90: dark brown to yellowish brown, loose, coarse
sand, 50% rounded to subangular medium pebbles to
small cobbles, 10% shell fragments, increasing
moisture with depth (beach deposit)
Probe terminated due to saturation
Metal bracket and
associated metal
fragments, likely
related to rock
bulkhead or gravel
driveway, ~40 cm
below surface
4
506800.25 m E
5322461.19 m N
Immediately northwest of
deck and concrete
driveway, landward of
existing bulkhead
0-80: grayish and yellowish brown, loose, coarse
sand, 50% rounded to angular small pebbles to large
cobbles, 2% shell fragments, angular rocks likely
introduced during bulkhead construction (disturbed
glacial drift)
Auger used between 70 and 80 cm below surface;
probe terminated due to rock impasse
Concrete chunk,
~10 cm below
surface
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 23
Figure 15. Shovel probe in the anchored log portion of the project. Subsurface deposits consisted of dark brown
medium to coarse gravelly sand overlying medium brown with orange mottles gravelly silty clay. These sediments
likely represent Pleistocene glacial drift. Image of SP1.
Figure 16. Shovel probe near the concrete driveway. Subsurface deposits consisted of dark brown medium to coarse
gravelly sand with angular medium to large cobbles introduced during the construction of the existing bulkhead.
These sediments likely represent disturbed glacial drift. Image of SP4.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 24
5.2 Cultural Resources Identified
Background research and field investigation conducted by CRC did not result in the
identification of archaeological sites or historic structures at the project location.
5.3 Conclusions, Findings, and Recommendations
Based on review of historical, archaeological, and environmental datasets and field investigation,
a low to moderate probability exists for adverse effects to archaeological sites during project
activities. The statewide predictive model classifies the project location as very high risk for
archaeological sites. The project’s proximity to documented S’Klallam villages and productive
resource gathering areas, including the pond 500 feet west of the project, raises the possibility
that archaeological materials exist at the project location. At the same time, land clearing
activities and construction of the house, boat ramp, driveway, and bulkhead have disturbed near-
surface sediments, especially in the western half of the project. Given the prevalence of glacial
(i.e. Pleistocene) sediments documented in excavated shovel probes, archaeological materials
dating to the Holocene are unlikely to be buried well-below the current ground surface. Post-
1850 alterations to the project therefore may have disturbed and/or removed all archaeological
materials at the project. In the event that archaeological materials are present at the project
location, they will likely be encountered within one to two feet of the ground surface.
No additional cultural resources investigations are recommended at this time. If ground
disturbing activities result in the discovery of archaeological materials, project staff should halt
work in the immediate area and contact the technical staff at DAHP and tribal representatives, as
outlined in the inadvertent discovery protocol (Appendix B). Work should be stopped until
further investigation and appropriate consultation have concluded. In the unlikely event of
inadvertent discovery of human remains, project staff should immediately stop work, cover and
secure the discovery against further disturbance, and contact law enforcement personnel,
consistent with the provisions set forth in RCW 27.44.055 and RCW 68.60.055.
6.0 Limitations of this Assessment
No cultural resources study can assess with complete certainty whether archaeological sites,
historic properties, or traditional cultural properties exist at a project location. The information
presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from CRC’s analysis and
interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information identified in this report
and on field investigation and observations. The conclusions and recommendations presented
apply to current and reasonably foreseeable project conditions. The data, conclusions, and
interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions.
They do not apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to
evaluate.
7.0 References
Arksey, L.
2008 Sequim and the Sequim-Dungeness Valley—Thumbnail History. Electronic resource,
https://www.historylink.org/File/8555, accessed December 20, 2019.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 25
Atwater, B. F., and A. L. Moore
1992 A Tsunami about 1000 Years Ago in Puget Sound, Washington. Science
258(5088):1614-1617.
Berger, M., and J. McNett
2016 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Discovery Bay Barn Demo Project, Jefferson
County, WA. Cultural Resource Consultants. Report submitted to Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Berger, M., and S. Kassa
2015 Cultural Resources Assessment for the W. Fir Street Improvements Project, Sequim,
Clallam County, WA. Cultural Resource Consultants. Report submitted to Gray &
Osborne, Inc.
Bethel, J.
2004 An Overview of the Geology and Geomorphology of the Snoqualmie River Watershed.
King County Ecological Services Unit. Report submitted to King County Watershed and
Ecological Assessment Team.
Booth, D.
1994 Glaciofluvial Infilling and Scour of the Puget Lowland, Washington, During Ice-Sheet
Glaciation. Geology 22(8):695-698.
Booth, D. B., R. A. Haugerud, and K. G. Troost
2003 The Geology of Puget Lowland Rivers. In Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, edited by
D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D. B. Booth, pp. 14-45. University of Washington Press,
Seattle.
Bretz, H.
1913 Glaciation of the Puget Sound Region. Bulletin No. 8. Washington Geological Survey,
Olympia, Washington.
Bridges, T., K. Duncan, and G. Cauffman
2015 Jamestown S’Klallam. In Native Peoples of the Olympia Peninsula: Who We Are, edited
by J. Wray, pp. 37-52. 2nd ed. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Bucknam, R. C., E. Hemphill-Haley, and E. B. Leopold
1992 Abrupt Uplift within the Past 1700 Years at Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Science
258(5088):1611-1614.
Caldbick, J.
2015 The Railroads of Jefferson and Clallam Counties. Electronic resource,
https://www.historylink.org/File/11096, accessed December 20, 2019.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 26
Carlson, R. L.
1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest
Coast, pp. 60-69, edited by W. Suttles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Eronen, M., T. Kankainen, and M. Tsukada
1987 Late Holocene Sea Level Record in a Core from the Puget Lowland, Washington.
Quaternary Research 27(2):147-159.
Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-8.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Gibbs, G.
1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Contributions to North
American Ethnology 1:157-243.
Greengo, R. E. (editor)
1983 Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast. Thomas Burke Memorial
Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle.
Gunther, E.
1927 Klallam Ethnography. Publications in Archaeology 1(5):171-314.
Hunt, G. A.
1970 Port Discovery Mill Site (45JE81) Master Site File. On file at DAHP, Olympia.
Jefferson County Auditor
1891 Census of Jefferson County, Washington. Jefferson County Census.
Jefferson County Territorial Auditor
1887 Census of the Inhabitants of Port Discovery in the County of Jefferson, Territory of
Washington. Jefferson County Census.
Kassa, S.
2016 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Agnew Irrigation District Edmonson Shallow
Aquifer Recharge Project, Clallam County, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants.
Report submitted to Clallam Conservation District.
Kauhi, T. C., and J. Markert
2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers. Report submitted
to DAHP, Olympia.
Kopperl, R. E., A. K. Taylor, C. J. Miss, K. M. Ames, and C. M. Hodges
2015 The Bear Creek Site (45KI839), a Late Pleistocene-Holocene Transition Occupation in
the Puget Sound Lowland, King County, Washington. PaleoAmerica 1(1):116-120.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 27
Kopperl, R., C. Hodges, C. Miss, J. Shea, and A. Spooner
2016 Archaeology of King County, Washington: A Context Statement for Native American
Archaeological Resources. SWCA Environmental Consultants. Report submitted to the
King County Historic Preservation Program.
Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch (editors)
1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-
Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Larson Anthropological Archaeological
Services, Gig Harbor, Washington.
Ludwin, R. S., C. P. Thrush, K. James, D. Buerge, C. Jonientz-Trisler, J. Rasmussen, K. Troost,
and A. de los Angeles
2005 Serpent Spirit-power Stories along the Seattle Fault. Seismological Research Letters
76(4):426-431.
McClary, D. C.
2005 Jefferson County—Thumbnail History. Electronic resource,
https://www.historylink.org/File/7472, accessed December 20, 2019.
McKee, B.
1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill, New York.
Metsker Maps
1952 Township 30 N., Range 2 W., W.M., Jefferson & Clallam Counties. Metsker Maps,
Seattle.
Morgan, V. (editor)
1995 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Fasola/Schaafsma Olcott Site.
On file at DAHP, Olympia.
1999 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late-Holocene
Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington. Eastern
Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-08. Archaeological and
Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Report prepared for
Washington State Department of Transportation.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR)
2019 Historic Aerials. Electronic resource, http://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript,
accessed December 20, 2019.
National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB)
2019 TopoView. Electronic resource, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed December
20, 2019.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 28
Nelson, C. M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume
7: Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory Committee
2015 The S’Klallam: Lower Elwha, Jamestown, and Port Gamble. In Native Peoples of the
Olympia Peninsula: Who We Are, edited by J. Wray, pp. 16-18. 2nd ed. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Plummer, G. H., F. G. Plummer, and J. H. Rankine
1902 Map of Washington Showing Classification of Lands. U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
Coast & Geodetic Survey T-Sheet
1869 T-1125, Map of Part of Port Discovery, Wash. Ter., 1869. U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C.
Rankine, J. W., and G. H. Plummer
1898 Map of Western Washington Showing Classification of Lands. U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
Robinson, J. M.
1997 A Cultural Resources Survey of Washington State Department of Transportation’s SR
101: Gardiner Cemetery Road to MP 277.6 Project, Jefferson County, Washington.
Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University. Report
submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation.
1999 An Archaeological Survey of Washington State Department of Transportation’s SR 101:
Chicken Coop Road Eastbound Passing/Truck Lane Project, Jefferson County,
Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University.
Report submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Samuels, S. R. (editor)
1994 Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna. Reports of
Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman,
and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Suttles, W.
1990 Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest
Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 453-475. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 29
Thorson, R. M.
1980 Ice-Sheet Glaciation of the Puget lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade (late
Pleistocene). Quaternary Research 13(3):303-321.
1981 Isostatic Effects of the Last Glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-370, Washington, D.C.
1989 Glacio-Isostatic Response of the Puget Sound Area, Washington. Geological Society of
American Bulletin 101(9):1163-1174.
Troost, K. G., and D. E. Booth
2008 Geology of Seattle and the Seattle Area, Washington. In Landslides and Engineering
Geology of the Seattle, Washington, Area, edited by R. L. Baum, J. W. Godt, and L. M.
Highland, pp. 1-35. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.
United States Census Bureau (UCSB)
1910 Thirteenth Census of the United States, Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA
NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey, Washington. Electronic resource,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed December
20, 2019.
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
2019 General Land Office Records Search. Electronic resource,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx, accessed December 20, 2019.
United States General Land Office (GLO)
1859 Township No 30 N. R. No 2 W., Willamette Mer. General Land Office Survey Plat.
Department of Interior General Land Office, Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2017 Gardiner Quadrangle, Washington. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C.
Veracini, L.
2011 Introducing Settler Colonial Studies. Settler Colonial Studies 1(1):1-12.
Waitt, R. B., and R. M. Thorson
1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In Late Quaternary
Environments of the United States, edited by S. C. Porter, pp. 53-70. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 30
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)
2019a Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting 2019. On file at DAHP,
Olympia.
2019b Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
(WISAARD) database. Electronic resource, https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/,
accessed December 20, 2019.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR)
2019 Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Division of Geology and Earth Resources –
Washington’s Geological Survey. Electronic resource,
https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/, accessed December 20, 2019.
Wilkes, C.
1841 Port Discovery, Straits of Fuca, Oregon Territory. In Atlas of the Narrative of the United
States Exploring Expedition During the Years, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. C. Sherman,
Philadelphia.
Williams, H. F. L., I. Hutchinson, and A. R. Nelson
2005 Multiple Sources for Late-Holocene Tsunamis at Discovery Bay, Washington State,
USA. The Holocene 15(1):60-73.
Wilson, D.
2018 The Fort and the Village: Landscape and Identity in the Colonial Period of Fort
Vancouver. In British Forts and Their Communities, edited by C. R. DeCorse and Z. J.
M. Beier, pp. 91-125. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 31
Appendix A. Correspondence between CRC and Tribal Cultural Resources
Staff
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 32
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 33
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 34
Appendix B. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol
In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological
Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic
Cemeteries and Historic Graves, the following steps will be taken in the event that
archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered:
Procedures for Discovery of Potential or Actual Cultural Resources
Upon discovery of a potential or actual archaeological site or cultural resources as defined by
RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and
Resources, the project proponent, its employees, contractors, and sub-contractors shall:
(a) Immediately cease or halt ground disturbing, construction, or other activities around
the area of the discovery and secure the area with a perimeter of not less than 30 feet until
all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume. If such a
perimeter would materially impact agency functions mandated by law, related to health,
safety, or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall be of a size and extent
practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the circumstances.
Project activities that are not ground disturbing may continue outside the secured
perimeter around the findings. No one shall excavate any findings and all findings will be
left in place, undisturbed and without analysis, until consultation with DAHP and
identified area Tribes regarding a final disposition of the findings has been completed. In
accordance with RCW 27.53.060, no one shall knowingly remove or collect any
archaeological objects without obtaining a permit.
(b) Notify the State Archaeologist at DAHP and identified area Tribes of the discovery as
soon as possible and no later than 24 hours of the discovery. If human remains are found,
the project proponent shall follow notification procedures specified below.
(c) Arrange for the parties to conduct a joint viewing of the discovery within 48 hours of
the notification; or at the earliest possible time thereafter, the project proponent or their
authorized representative shall arrange for the archaeologist to attend the joint viewing.
After the joint viewing, taking into account any recommendations of the Tribes DAHP,
and the archaeologist, the parties shall discuss the potential significance, if any, of the
discovery.
(d) Consult with the identified area Tribes and DAHP on the transfer and final disposition
of artifacts. Until the Tribe has a repository that meets the standards of curation
established 36 CFR Part 79, artifacts shall be curated using an institution or organization
that meets curation standards, selected through consultation with the Tribes.
Procedures for Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains
Upon discovery of human skeletal remains on non-federal and non-tribal land and in accordance
with RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055, the project proponent, its employees,
contractors, and sub-contractors shall:
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 35
(a) If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of
construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those
remains and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance.
In addition, the finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the Jefferson
County Medical Examiner’s Office and Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office in the most
expeditious manner possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further
disturbed.
(b) The Jefferson County Medical Examiner’s Office 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 determines the remains are non-
forensic, then they will report that finding to DAHP who will then take jurisdiction
over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected Tribes.
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. DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to
the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains.
(c) DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future
preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains if no federal agency is involved.
Confidentiality of Information
The project proponent and their authorized representative recognizes that archaeological sites are
sensitive cultural resources that can become targets of vandalism and illegal removal activities.
The project proponent or their authorized representative shall keep and maintain as confidential
all information regarding any discovered cultural resources, particularly the location of known or
suspected archaeological property, and exempt all such information from public disclosure
consistent with RCW 42.17.300.
Contact Information
The lead representatives and primary contacts of each party under this plan are as identified
below. The parties may identify other specific personnel before the commencement of any
particular project element as the contacts.
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim, WA 98382
Primary Contact: David Brownell, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, 360-681-4638
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
2851 Lower Elwha Road, Port Angeles, WA 98363
Primary Contact: Bill White, Archaeologist / Cultural Resources, 360-460-1617
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
31912 Little Boston Road NE
Primary Contact: Stormy Purser, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, 360-297-6358
v
CRC Technical Memorandum #1912A-1
Zimmerman Dock and Bulkhead Replacement Project, Sequim, Jefferson County, WA
Page 36
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
PO Box 48343, Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Primary Contact: Stephanie Jolivette, Local Governments Archaeologist, 360-586-3088,
Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov
Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534
or 360-790-1633, Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office
79 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339
Primary Contact: Joe Nole, 360-385-3831
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s / Coroner’s Office
1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Primary Contact: James Kennedy, Prosecuting Attorney, 360-385-9180