HomeMy WebLinkAboutCultural Resouce Study 960300008ScPo�;'0
CtCQa3a600
DAHP Project Number: 2022-06-04102
Authors: Garth L. Baldwin and James Schumacher
Title of Report: Cultural Resource Assessment for 71 Heller Drive TPN:
960300008), Port Hadlock-Irondale, Jefferson County, Washington
Date of Report: June 20, 2022
County: Jefferson Section: 7 Township: 29N Range: 1 E
Quad: Nordland, WA Acres: <1
PDF of report submitted REQUIRED Yes
Historic Prop" Invento Forms to be Approved Online? Yes FJNo
Archaeological Sites !Isolates Found or Amended? Yes M No
TCP(s) found? 0 Yes M No
Replace a draft? F] Yes 0 No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit re uirement? F1 Yes # Z No
Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # M 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.
0 DRAYTON ARCHAEOLOGY
Cultural Resource Assessment for 71 Hiller Drive (TPN: 960300008), Port
Hadlock-Irondale, Jefferson County, Washington
Prepared By:
Garth L. Baldwin, M.A., RPA 16248
and James Schumacher, M.A.
Prepared For:
Richard McCutchan
71 Hiller Drive,
Port Hadlock-Irondale, Washington 98339
Drayton Archaeology Report: 0522L
June 20, 2022
PO Box 782 - Blaine, WA 98231-0782 - www.draytonarchaeology.com
CONTENTS
Summary....................................................................................................................-----................ 1
RegulatoryContext......................................................................................................................... 1
ProjectLocation and Description.................................................................................................... 2
NaturalEnvironmental Setting..................................................................................................
6
Geologyand Topography.......................................................................................................
6
Soils.........................................................................................................................................
6
Floraand Fauna.......................................................................................................................
7
CulturalContext..........................................................................................................................
7
Precontact.............................................................................................
8
Ethnographic...........................................................................................................................
9
HistoricPeriod......................................................................................................................
1 l
Cultural Resource Management Inventories and Documented Resources ...............................
12
Previous Cultural Resources and Sites.................................................................................
12
National Registered Historic Places (NR14P)......................................................................
12
RecordedCemeteries............................................................................................................
13
Cultural Resource Expectations....................................................................................................
13
FieldInvestigation........................................................................................................................
13
Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................................
18
References.....................................................................................................................................
20
Appendix A: Shovel Probe Index.................................................................................................
24
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. A portion of the USGS Nordland, WA 7.5' USGS quad map with the project area....... 3
Figure 2. An aerial image illustrating the project area.................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Site plan (courtesy of the client)...................................................................................... 5
Table 1. Cultural resource studies recorded within an approximate one -mile radius of the project
area............................ ............................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4. An aerial image illustrating shovel probe locations...................................................... 17
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1. Overview of the project area, view west........................................................................ 14
Photo 2. Overview of proposed septic location, view east........................................................... 14
Photo 3. Overview of the proposed new septic, view west.......................................................... 15
Photo 4. Beach behind residence, view north............................................................................... 15
Photo 5. Soils observed within the project area (SP 1)................................................................. 18
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L
Cultural Resource Assessment for 71 Hiller Drive (TPN: 960300008), Port Hadlock-
Irondale, Jefferson County, Washington
Authors: Garth L. Baldwin and James Schumacher
Date: June 20, 2022
Location: Port Hadlock-Irondale, Jefferson County, Washington
USGS Quad: Nordland, WA 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle
Township, Range, Section: T29N, R1E, S7
SUMMARY
Drayton Archaeology (Drayton) was retained by Richard McCutchan to conduct an archaeological
assessment of 71 Hiller Drive, Port Hadlock-Irondale, Jefferson County (Tax Parcel No.
960300008) for the proposed single-family residence septic system improvement project. The
proposal involves the repair of an existing septic system and installation of an above -ground
wastewater treatment mound. This archaeological assessment was conducted to satisfy compliance
requirements for Jefferson County Department of Health for a septic replacement project.
Drayton's cultural resources assessment consisted of a thorough background review, field
investigation, and production of this report. Background review concluded that the project is
located in an area of high probability for cultural resources. On -site fieldwork included systematic
visual reconnaissance and subsurface investigation of areas of proposed impact. No precontact or
historic archaeological deposits were encountered within the project area during Drayton's field
investigation. As proposed, it appears unlikely that the project will affect cultural resources;
therefore no further archaeological oversight is warranted. Drayton recommends the project
proceed with no further archaeological oversight.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
Drayton's work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing agency responsibilities regarding the
identification of potential impacts to archaeological and historic sites in compliance with state laws
and regulations protecting cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53).
If archaeological resources are present, the project is subject to Washington State laws addressing
the protection of archaeological sites and Native American burials. The Archaeological Sites and
Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits the disturbance of known precontact and historic
archaeological sites on public or private lands. The Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44)
prohibits the disturbance of American Indian graves and requires re -interment under the
supervision of the affected Indian tribe if inadvertent disturbance by construction or other activity
occurs.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project area is located at 71 Hiller Drive, Port Hadlock-Irondale, Jefferson County (Tax Parcel
No. 960300008) (Figures 1 - 2). The proposed single-family residence septic system improvement
project involves the repair of an existing septic system and installation of an above -ground
wastewater treatment mound; the project area comprises less than one -acre (Figure 3).
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 2
•� a
Figure 1. A portion of the USGS Nordland, WA 7.5' USGS quad map with the project area.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 3
Figure 2. An aerial image illustrating the project area.
14�
Figure 3. Site plan (courtesy of the client).
i
R`iiw.a.Ya�uy ..Uaay. an.wi
�e Y��cir� �1nv Kc
,RERTIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
10 al+Inr I�u. �.� �r •,�ww�Y w.M!
wl aln-.rr cuu as• aac� +w wl;;r..v w.
BACKGROUND REVIEW
An investigation of archival research informs of the potential for encountering cultural resources
within project areas. Drayton's consulted archives include documents related to precontact and
historic environmental and cultural contexts, previously recorded cultural resources studies and
site records, and selected published local historic accounts. Archaeological records are obtained
from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP)
Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD).
WISAARD is a restricted -access searchable geographic information system containing locations
of previously recorded cultural resources surveys conducted post-1995, archaeological sites,
historic sites, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites, and cemeteries and burials. For
this project, Drayton reviewed cultural resource archives documented within an approximate one -
mile radius of the project area.
The following sections detail the environmental, cultural, and archaeological circumstances that
inform Drayton's archaeological assessment of the project area.
Natural Environmental Setting
The environmental setting of the region is presented here to appreciate the unique geologic
conditions responsible for the landscape formations that affected the life ways of early inhabitants.
Natural geologic conditions also provide baseline context for the cultural resources assessment to
better understand how the landscape has been culturally modified by various human activities.
Geology and Topography
The proposed project is geographically situated within the Willamette -Puget Lowland
physiographic province of the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone (Franklin and Dymess 1973).
Topography and surface geology of the project area were shaped by multiple glaciations that
occurred during the end of the Pleistocene (Kruckeberg 1991; McKee 1972). The most recent
glacial event in the Puget Sound, called the Vashon Stade, is largely responsible for the region's
contemporary landscape; glacial advance and retreat scoured and compacted underlying geology
while meltwaters carved drainage channels into glacial outwash deposits. By about 13,600 years
ago, the last of the Pleistocene glaciers had retreated as far north as Seattle (Thorson 1980),
exposing the predominately north -trending ridges and relatively level uplands characteristic of the
Puget Sound region.
Surface geology mapped for the project area consists of Quaternary (Pleistocene) glacial drift
(Qgd), which consists of Pleistocene till and outwash clay, silt, sand, and gravel (WADNR 2022).
Soils
The University of California Davis Agriculture and Natural Resources, in conjunction with the
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation District (USDA-NRCS
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L
n.d.) developed an interactive soil survey application. According to the UC Davis SoilWeb
database, soils mapped within the project are Hoypus gravelly sandy loam (HvQ, 0 to 15 percent
slopes, found on terraces, and formed from glacial outwash. The typical profile is: Oi--O to 1 inches
(0-2.54 cm) slightly decomposed needles and twigs; over A horizon 1 to 5 inches (2.54-12.70 cm)
very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sandy loam, very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) dry; weak fine
subangular blocky structure; soft, very friable, many very fine to medium and common coarse
roots; many very fine and fine irregular and interstitial pores; 10 percent gravel.; over Horizon
Bwl--5 to 20 inches (12.70-50.80 cm) dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand, yellowish
brown (IOYR 5/4) dry; single grained; loose, many fine, medium and common coarse roots; many
very fine to medium interstitial and irregular pores; 10 percent gravel; over Horizon Bw2--20 to
36 inches (50.80-91.44 cm); dark brown (IOYR 3/3) very gravelly loamy sand, brown (IOYR 5/3)
dry; single grained; loose, common fine roots; many very fine to medium irregular and interstitial
pores; 55 percent gravel; over C Horizon--36 to 60 inches (91.44 —152.4 cm) variegated colors 50
percent light, 30 percent dark, 20 percent medium, extremely gravelly sand; single grained; loose,
few fine roots; many very fine irregular and interstitial pores; 60 percent gravel, 5 percent cobbles.
Flora and Fauna
Prior to development activities in the area, native vegetation would have been typical of the Tsuga
heterophylla vegetation zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), and characteristic of the Puget Sound
basin. Native vegetation would have included, but not have been limited to Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla),
salal (Gaultheria shallon), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Other locally important and available
species would have included bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), blackcap (Rubus occidentalis),
currants (Ribes spp.), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), devil's club (Oplopanax horridus),
gooseberries (Ribes spp.), huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis),
oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus), sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and trailing blackberry (Rubus
ursinus) (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Large areas would have differed from the broader regional
pattern, however, with areas of prairie, oak woodland, and pine forest being distributed throughout
the southern Puget Sound basin (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Terrestrial animals in the area would
have included black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus
americanus), beavers (Castor canadensis), as well as other small game and waterfowl (Suttles and
Lane 1990).
Cultural Context
A broad discussion of regional land use in the vicinity of the project area provides contextual
information regarding past inhabitants and the activities in which they engaged. It is important to
note that many of the name designations applied to Native inhabitants (particularly during contact
and early historic periods), are those given by European explorers, Euro-American settlers, and
others compiling information for treaty purposes.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L
Human occupation of the Puget Lowland is well documented in a number of archaeological,
ethnographic, and oral historic records (e.g., Ames and Maschner 1999; Greengo and Houston
1970; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Moss 2011; Nelson 1990; Suttles 1974). British Columbia
Northwest Coast Culture traditions are closely related and can be viewed in Borden (1950, 1975);
Carlson and Dalla Bona (1996); Fladmark (1982); and Matson and Coupland (1995).
Precontact
Puget Lowland archaeology can be subdivided into three time periods: the early (10,500 to 5,000
years BP), middle (5,000 to 1,000 BP) and late periods (1,000 to 250 BP).
The early period is characterized by activities to support habitation within camps along river
terraces or outwash channels. Tool technology is primarily characterized by the use of flaked stone
tools including fluted projectile points, leaf -shaped points, and cobble -derived tools. These
artifacts are often attributed to the "Olcott" phase, named after the site -type near Arlington and
Granite Falls (Baldwin 2008; Kidd 1964; Mattson 1985). Suggested by Mattson (1985:83) and
Kidd (1964:26), Olcott sites are generally located away from modern shorelines, where occupation
took place along terraces of active watercourses of the time. Today, these past habitation areas are
often found away from modern rivers, as the course of waterways and channels have shifted over
time. Besides the lithic assemblage, little faunal or organic evidence dates to this period - likely a
result of poor preservation due to soil composition and elapsed time. The lack of organic evidence
and the abundance of lithic materials unintentionally skew the archaeological record to suggest a
specialization of terrestrial hunting practices.
The middle period coincides with a stabilization of the physical environment and climate to
modern conditions. The middle period is noted for its increased artifact and trait diversity including
a full woodworking toolkit comprised of bone and antler implements, art and ornamental objects,
status differentiation in burials, and extremely specialized fishing and sea -mammal hunting
technologies (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995; Moss 2011; Wessen 1990).
Lithic technology becomes specialized to include smaller notched points and ground stone (Moss
2011; Nelson 1990; Wessen 1990). Shell midden sites first appear during this period, indicating a
transition to a predominantly maritime -based subsistence pattern (Matson and Coupland 1995;
Nelson 1990; Thompson 1978). Although structural elements such as post molds have been
identified (Moss 2011; Nelson 1990), habitation structures have not been excavated.
The late period is dominated by a settlement pattern along the coastline, streams, and rivers that
show evidence of increased fortification (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995;
Moss 2011). Rising sea levels and riparian environments supporting large salmon runs allowed
salmon to become a predominant food source (Moss 2011; Wessen 1990). The late period is
generally recognized by an apparent decrease in artifact diversity. Stone carving and chipped stone
technologies nearly disappear, while trade goods (indicating extensive trade networks along the
coast and with inland plateau peoples), increase (Moss 2011; Nelson 1990; Thompson 1978).
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 8
Ethnographic
The property is located within the aboriginal territory of the Chemakum and S'Klallam (Castile
1985; Elmendorf 1990; Gunther 1927; Spier 1936; Suttles 1974, 1990). The Chemakum resided
on the Quimper Peninsula from about Port Ludlow to Port Townsend. While the Chemakum were
closely linked with Coast Salish speaking neighbors, they spoke a distinct Chimakuan language
that consisted of Quileute and Chemakum, the latter now extinct (Powell 1990; Elmendorf 1990).
Both the Chemakum and Quileute, whose aboriginal territory is on the western side of the Olympic
Peninsula, share a legend of linguistic ties. While the details differ, the basic legend includes a
group of Quileute people who drifted to Port Townsend during a flood event, resulting in two
different groups speaking one language (Elmendorf 1990). By the mid- 19th century, the
Chemakum had been reduced in population likely due to intertribal warfare and disease. Curtis
(1913) recounts a story of a Suquamish and Clallam attack on the Chimakum stockaded village at
Tsaqi (Chimakum Creek), likely about 1850, which largely reduced their numbers, and survivors
of this raid moved to the Twana reservation, though some remained at Port Townsend (Elmendorf
1990). After the signing of the Treaty of Point No Point, remaining Chemakum descendants
intermarried with Clallam, Twana, and Skokomish, and became absorbed by those groups
(Elmendorf 1990). The reduction in Chemakum population resulted in Clallam speakers moving
into Chemakum Territory at Port Townsend (Suttles 1990).
S'Klallam have been grouped within Central Coast Salish Territory, which largely refers to
speakers of five languages including Squamish, Halkomelem, Nooksack, Northern Straits, and
S'klallam. These speakers occupied the lands and waterways along the southern end of the Strait
of Georgia, most of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Lower Fraser Valley, and additional areas
(Suttles 1990:453). The Clallam, S'Klallam or Klallam who call themselves Nuxsklai'yem,
meaning "strong people" or "mighty tribe", lived along the Strait of Juan de Fuca between present
day Clallam and Discovery Bay, as well as former territory of the Chimakums (Ruby and Brown
1992), and may have settled as far as Whidbey Island, though it is unknown whether this was a
village site or hunting camp (Deur 2009). The S'Klallam hunted inland as far as the Olympic
Mountains and also maintained fishing camps in nearby Twana country, Skagit territory, and with
relatives in the San Juan Islands and southernmost shores of Vancouver Island (Suttles 1990).
The S'Klallam were documented by Curtis (1913:19) as the most powerful and warlike of all the
Salish tribes on the coast of Washington. A history of raids and counterraids were documented
between the neighboring Makah, Chimakum, and Suquamish, as well as the Haida, Tsimshians,
Lekwiltok, and Cowichans, (Ruby and Brown 1992; Curtis 1913), which resulted in the erection
of double palisaded forts. Gunther (1927) also provides documentation of skirmishes and protocols
of war. The S'Klallam were friendly and closely related with the Lummi, and the Songish and
Sooke of Vancouver Island. Intermarriage was also practiced between the S'Klallam with the
Makah and Twana, which also built strong local trade networks.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 9
Approximately a dozen S'Klallam villages have been documented along the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and two along the Elwha River (Gibbs 1863:20; Curtis 1913:174; Gunther 1927:174, 178; Suttles
1990:454-455; and Lane and James 2004). During treaty time these villages included Y'innis and
Chewitzen (Tse-whit-zwen) on False Dungeness Bay, now known as Port Angeles Harbor, Elh-wa
at the mouth of the Elwha River, Ti-E-1 (Indian Creek), Pishtst at the Pysht River, Hunnint and
Klat-la-wash at Clallam Bay, and Oke-ho on the Hoko River (Lane and James 2004). Gibbs (1863)
and Curtis (1913) also recorded sites further east including Shkwin or Schqaiing on Sequim Bay,
Tsiskat at New Dungeness, Tsuq at the mouth of the Dungeness River, Sttitlum at the site of
Jamestown, Ka-kaitl or Skwa-kwel at Port Discovery, and Ka-tai at Port Townsend. Ka-tai is likely
the village located at Point Hudson, which consisted of 18 lodges of intermixed S'Klallam and
Chemakum speakers in 1860 (Elmendorf 1990:439). Gunther (1927) provides a rich ethnography
of S'Klallam life through fieldwork conducted between 1924 and 1925 from Jamestown,
Washington Harbor, and Esquimalt.
Precontact and Early Historic Period inhabitants practiced a semi -sedentary land use system based
on fishing, hunting, and gathering resources in the summer months in order to stockpile for them
for winter use and trade. As with most coastal peoples, this settlement economy was centered on
dispersed temporary camping sites in the spring and summer and larger, multi -family winter
villages. S'Klallam winter villages were located near the mouths of rivers and along the shorelines
of sheltered bays which provided varied and abundant resources (Gunther 1927; Lane and James
2004). Fortified war refugees were also built in precontact times (Suttles 1990:462), which may
indicate a more sedentary lifestyle. Transportation was conducted largely by canoe, of which there
were five dugout styles in the Central Coast area. The Coast Salish and West Coast canoes were
most commonly used by the S'Klallam and were optimal tools utilized for saltwater fishing and
hunting (Suttles 1990:462).
Fisheries within the Strait of Juan de Fuca was a dietary staple among the S'Klallam, especially
salmon, that were harvested year-round via traps, trolling, nets, or spearing (Suttles 1990; Lane
and James 2004). Halibut, lingcod, herring, sturgeon, steelhead, flounder, smelt, candlefish, and a
large assortment of shellfish and crustaceans were also important marine resources. Sea otters, sea
lions and porpoises were also hunted with the Nuxsklai'yem and Quinault being the only Coast
Salish groups to practice whaling (Suttles 1990). Deer, elk, black bear, beaver and other small
mammals were hunted for furs and a variety of waterfowl and upland birds were also hunted, some
for food, others for their feathers (Lane and James 2004).
In 1855 the Chemakum and S'Klallam were signatory to the Treaty of Point No Point, which
removed them to the Skokomish reservation at the southern end of the Hood Canal, over 100 miles
from their traditional territory (Suttles 1990; Ruby and Brown 1992). Few chose to remove to this
reservation and instead acquired land by purchase or homestead entry. Several S'Klallam took up
residence at Port Gamble to work and settled near the sawmill that was established in 1853. In
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 10
1871 aboriginal people living in the Port Townsend area were forced out and their houses burned,
and canoes towed to Skokomish (Caldbick 2014). Many returned and settled on Indian Island
across the bay. Refusing to move to the Skokomish Reservation, the residents of Port Gamble, also
known as Little Boston or Nuxq!e'd, remained and in 1936-1937 the Port Gamble Indian
Community, Port Gamble Reservation was established. In 1874 a group known as the Jamestown
S'Klallam, who were located seven miles north of Sequim, purchased 210 acres of land that they
settled, naming it Nuxia "ante, or white firs (Gunther 1927:180). In 1981 the United States
government recognized the Jamestown S'Klallam Indian Tribe as an entity and fishing treaty rights
and other privileges were granted. In 1936-1937 the United States purchased 372 acres of land in
trust which became the Lower Elwha Tribal Community, Lower Elwha Reservation (Ruby and
Brown 1992).
Historic Period
Few Euro-American settlers inhabited the area during the historic period, but disease and imported
trade goods significantly impacted Native American populations. Chemakum people experienced
drastic population reduction due to a combination of a late eighteenth century smallpox epidemic
and increased conflict with neighboring groups (Elmendorf 1992). By the 1850s, Chemakum
territory, which had once stretched from the mouth of Hood Canal to the mouth of Port Discovery
Bay and included the shoreline from Port Townsend to Port Gamble (Castile 1985), decreased to
the area immediately around Port Townsend and Hadlock Bay, and the shoreline south to Port
Ludlow (Elmendorf 1990; Spier 1936). Only one Chemakum settlement remained, a large
permanent village near Port Hadlock called Tsets-i-bus (Castile 1985).
S'Klallam villages at this time were located at mouths of rivers and on shorelines of sheltered bays
along the south shore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including those at Dungeness Spit and
Washington Harbor. In 1855, following the signing of the Treaty of Point No Point, the
Chemakum, Skokomish, and Twana were forced to abandon most of their Western Puget Sound
villages and relocate to the Skokomish Reservation. The S'Klallam were also signatories to the
treaty but refused to move to Skokomish. The treaty dissolved Indian title to their traditional and
accustomed lands and by 1856 the federal government was using military force to contain those
dissatisfied with the poor quality of reservation lands.
By the middle 1850s, the logging industry resulted in establishment of lumber mils at Port Ludlow
and Port Townsend, and by the 1870s Port Townsend was established in the Washington Territory
as a farming, logging, and shipping town (Kirk and Alexander 1990). As the town grew, a
subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad routed its line from the Columbia River to Port Townsend,
spurring a boom period of°growth and civic investment. By the early 1890s, with Port Townsend
having grown to more than 7,000 people, the railroad chose to terminate its line in Seattle. This
move resulted in a loss of wealth and a long period of economic recession. It was only in the late
1920s, with the establishment of a paper mill, that many people sensed a restoration of fiscal well-
being (Gregory et al. 1966).
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 11
Cultural Resource Management Inventories and Documented Resources
Previous cultural resources studies and projects conducted in the vicinity of the project area
informs the archaeological context for this assessment and assists in the construction of Drayton's
cultural resource expectations.
Previous Cultural Resources and Sites
A review of the DAHP's WISAARD database was conducted in May 2022. According to the
available data on WISAARD, the specific project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources,
but five (5) cultural resources studies are recorded within a one -mile (1.6 km) radius of the project
area (Table 1). These studies were largely conducted to satisfy regulatory compliance related to
infrastructure and development projects or occur within a mile of the project area. Three (3)
archaeological sites are also located within the same search radius.
Table 1. Cultural resource studies recorded within an approximate one -mile radius of the project
area.
Citation
Report Title
Results
Bush and
Archaeological Investigation Report of Oak Bay Park, Jefferson
Negative
Hawthorne
County, Washington
2020
Cultural Resources Survey and Presence/Absence Testing of the
Negative
Lahren 2018
proposed expansion of the Shold gravel pit, Port Hadlock, Jefferson
County, Washington
Archaeological Site Boundary Location for the Law House
45JE275
Lahren 2011
Footprint, 181 Portage Way, Port Hadlock, Jefferson County,
Washington.
Bush 2010
Letter Report: Archeological Monitoring for the Law Property
45JE275
water/sewer line installations.
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey for the Little Oak Bay
45JE276.
Kent 2004
Restoration Project on Portage Canal Near Port Hadlock, Jefferson,
County, Washington.
The closest recorded site is 45JE275, located approximately 0.1-mile north of the project area. It
was recorded as a precontact village and shell midden site (Kent 2004). Cultural material
associated with the site consists of midden, human remains, faunal material, fire -modified rock,
and other artifacts. Site 45JE276 was also recorded by Kent (2004) and appeared to be a precontact
village and midden related to site 45JE275. A site designated as 45JE417 is mapped about 0.5-
mile north of the project area, with an indeterminate boundary and no specific details available on
WISAARD.
National Registered Historic Places (NRHP)
There are no NRHP eligible properties recorded within a one -mile radius of the project.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 12
Recorded Cemeteries
There are two locations designated as cemeteries (site nos. 45JE275, 45JE361) recorded within a
one -mile radius of the project. These consist of observed human skeletal remains and are about
0.2-mile north and 0.5-mile north, respectively, of the project area.
CULTURAL RESOURCE EXPECTATIONS
Based on the preceding background review, Drayton concludes that the project is located within
an area of high probability for historic -era or precontact cultural deposits, structures, or isolated
items. If precontact materials are present, they may include remnants associated with habitation,
subsistence practices, or ceremonial activities. Shell midden, vestiges of temporary camps and
dwellings, lithic scatters, trails, hearths, fire modified rock, faunal remains, and other materials
associated with precontact life may be represented. Historic -era remnants of early Euro-American
settlement and subsequent occupation are also considered.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Drayton employs standard archaeological field methods to assess the potential for cultural
resources within the project area. Field methods include a thorough visual reconnaissance of the
property and subsurface examination of soils. Visual reconnaissance includes a detailed surface
survey of the areas proposed for ground alteration (or other impact) to examine existing ground
disturbances and locate surficial cultural materials or structures with historic or archaeological
importance or cultural concern. Subsurface examination through the excavation of shovel probes
or large-scale mechanical excavation provides a detailed sample of soil conditions to assess
potential for, or presence/absence of, buried archaeological deposits. Subsurface excavation is
typically dependent upon considerations of the landform, topography, project proposal, and
geologic conditions.
Drayton's archaeological assessment was conducted on May 20, 2022 by Professional
Archaeologist James Schumacher. Weather conditions were clear and warm. A pedestrian survey
of the project area was conducted to examine the terrain, observe existing ground disturbances,
and locate surficial cultural materials (Photo 1). Entry to the small residential lot was along a short
very compacted gravel drive (Photos 2 and 3). The grassy terrain was somewhat level, with a
gradual slope eastward to the shoreline. The water -side limit of the landscaped lot was reinforced
by a retaining wall approximately a foot high above the beach. The beach was walked behind the
residence; there was no indication of archaeological shell midden, artifacts or features (Photo 4).
No cultural materials were observed during the pedestrian survey.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 13
N
TWWM7-
Photo 1.Overview of the project area, view west.
Photo 2. Overview of proposed septic location, view east.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 14
Photo 3.Overview of the proposed new septic, view west.
Photo 4. Beach behind residence, view north.
Five shovel probes were subsequently excavated in the area of proposed septic improvements
(Figure 4). Standard shovel probes consist of cylindrical pits measuring approximately 40 cm
(15.75 in) in diameter. No predetermined target depth is set for probing, as depths are based upon
geologic conditions, water table, degree of disturbance, and professional judgment. Ideally, shovel
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 15
probes are considered complete when at least 20 cm of sterile soils are observed or an intact stratum
of glacial deposits is encountered. Soils excavated from probes were screened through a shaker
screen with quarter -inch hardware cloth. The shovel probes were completely backfilled and the
locations marked on a site sketch map.
Soil profiles were consistent with the previously described soils mapped for the area (Photo 5). A
description of the soil sequence and composition of each shovel probe is described fully in
Appendix A. No cultural materials were encountered during field investigation.
Drayton Archaeology Report0522L 16
Figure 4. An aerial image illustrating shovel probe locations.
LOT
Photo 5. Soils observed within the project area (SP 1).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Drayton's cultural resources assessment consisted of a thorough background examination, field
investigation, and production of this report. A professional archaeologist who meets or exceeds
the criteria set forth in RCW: 27.53 conducted this review and subsequently concluded that the
project is located in an area of moderate probability for cultural resources. This assessment is based
primarily on the property's proximity to known archaeological sites. No cultural materials were
located during the field investigation. Based on the results of this review,• bra ton recommends
that the project proceed without further archaeological oversight.
Shovel testing is employed as a cost-effective means to evaluate subsurface conditions and locate
buried cultural resources, however, it is not exhaustive. Therefore, no shovel testing regiment is
100% accurate in recovering or locating buried cultural resources. Regardless, Washington State
law provides for the protection of all archaeological resources under Washington State Revised
Codes of Washington (RCW) Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources. Be advised that
the unauthorized removal, theft, and/or destruction of archaeological resources and sites are strictly
prohibited. Further, this statute provides for prosecution and financial penalties, including
consultation and the recovery of archaeological resources, for those found in violation. 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. Washington legal code, RCW
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 18
68.50.645 - Duty to Notify, provides a strict protocol for the notification of law enforcement and
other interested parties if a—X human remains, regardless of perceived patrimony, are encountered.
The following section, "Inadvertent Discovery Protocols," outlines the recommended procedures
that property owners, project managers, construction crews, and others responsible for work should
follow if cultural materials are encountered during project activities.
INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS
Archaeological Resources
If archaeological resources (e.g., shell midden, faunal remains (bones), stone tools, historic glass,
metal, or other materials) are observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity
must stop and the area secured. The project archaeologist must be contacted immediately to inspect
the materials and contact relevant parties. An assessment of the materials and consultation with
government and tribal cultural resources staff is a requirement of Washington law. Once the
situation has been assessed, steps to proceed can be determined.
Human Burials, Remains, or Unidentified Bone(s)
If human remains or indeterminate bones are encountered, work must stop immediately. The area
surrounding the remains must be secured and of adequate size to protect them from further
disturbance until the State provides a notice to proceed. The discovery of any human skeletal
remains must be reported to law enforcement immediately. The county medical examiner/coroner
will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains to make a determination of whether those
remains are forensic or non -forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the
remains are non -forensic, the State Physical Anthropologist at the DAHP will assume jurisdiction
over the remains. The DAHP will notify appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the
disturbed remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the
remains are Native or Non -Native origin and report that finding to appropriate cemeteries and
affected tribes. The DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future
preservation, excavation, and deposition of the remains and authorize a timeline for the
continuation of work.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 19
REFERENCES
Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert D. G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast, Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and
Hudson Ltd., London.
Baldwin, Garth L.
2008 RE: Archaeological Testing of 45SN417 at the Woodhaven Residential
Development, Granite Falls, Washington. Drayton Archaeology Letter Report 0907A.
On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia,
Washington.
Borden, Charles
1950 "Notes on the Prehistory of the Southern Northwest Coast." British Columbia
Historical Quarterly 14: 241-246. Victoria.
1975 Origins and Development of Early Northwest Coast Culture to About 3000 B.C.
Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 45. Published by the National Museum
of Man Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
Bush, Kelly R.
2010 Letter Report: Archaeology Monitoring for the Law Property Water/Sewer line
Installations. On file, DAHP Olympia.
Bush, Kelly R. and Paige E. Hawthorne
2020 Archaeological Investigation Report of Oak Bay Park, Jefferson County,
Washington. On file, DAHP, Olympia.
Carlson, Roy L., and Luke Dalla Bona (editors)
1996 Early Human Occupation in British Columbia.UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Castile, George P.
1985 The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Myron Eells. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Curtis, Edward S.
1913 The Salishan tribes of the coast. The Chimakum and the Quilliute. The Willapa.
The North American Indian, Volume 9. The Plimpton Press, Norwood, Massachusetts.
Deur, Douglas
2009 Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve: An Ethnohistory of Traditionally
Associated Contemporary Populations. United States Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Pacific West Region Series in Social Science, Publication
Number 2009-02
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 20
Elmendorf, William W.
1990 Chemakum. In Northwest Coast, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7,
edited by W. Suttles, pp. 438-440. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1992 The Structure of Twana Culture. Washington State University Press, Pullman.
Fladmark, K. R.
1982 An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 6:95-256.
Franklin, Jerry 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.
Gibbs, George
1863 Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi. Smithsonian Institute,
Cramoisy Press, New York.
Greengo, Robert E. and Robert Houston
1970 Excavations at the Marymoor Site. Magic Machine, Seattle, Washington.
Gregory, V. J., R. F. McCurdy, and Z. Davis (eds.)
1966 With Pride in Heritage. Jefferson County Historical Society, Port Townsend.
Gunther, Erna
1927 Klallam Ethnography. Publications in Archaeology 1(5):171-314. University of
Washington, Seattle.
Kent, Ronald J.
2004 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey for the Little Oak Bay Restoration
Project on Portage Canal Near Port Hadlock, Jefferson County, Washington. On file,
DAHP Olympia.
Kidd, Robert S.
1964 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45SN30. On file at
the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Kirk, Ruth, and Carmela Alexander
1990 Exploring Washington's Past: A Road Guide to History. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
Kruckeberg, Arthur R.
1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound County. University of Washington Press,
Seattle.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 21
Lahren, Sylvester L.
2018 Cultural Resources Survey and Presence/Absence Testing of the Proposed
Expansion of the Shold Gravel Pit, Port Hadlock, Jefferson County, Washington. On
file, DAHP Olympia.
2011 Archaeological Site Boundary Location for the Law House Footprint, 181 Portage
Way, Port Hadlock, Jefferson County, Washington. On file, DAHP Olympia.
Lane, Barbara, and Karen James
2004 Collection of Klallam History. Compiled and produced by the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles.
Larson, L. L., and D. Lewarch (editors)
1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 years of Hunter -
Fisher -Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. On file at the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
Matson, R. G. and G. C. Coupland
1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Mattson, John L.
1985 Puget Sound Prehistory: Postglacial Adaptation in the Puget Sound Basin with
Archaeological Implications for a Solution to the "Cascade Problem". Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
McKee, B.
1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill Book
Company, New York.
Moss, Madonna
2011 Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History. Society of American Archaeology
Press. Washington, D.C.
Nelson, C. M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne P.
Suttles pp. 481-484. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, W.C. Sturtevant,
general editor, Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.
Powell, James V.
1990 Quileute. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne P. Suttles pp.431-437. Handbook
of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institute, Washington D. C.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 22
Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown
1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Spier, Leslie
1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3.
George Banta Publishing, Menasha, Wisconsin.
Suttles, Wayne P.
1974 The Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Coast Salish
and Western Washington Indians Vol. 1. Garland Publishing Inc., New York and
London.
1990 Central Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne P. Suttles pp.453-475.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institute, Washington D. C.
Suttles, Wayne P., and Barbara Lane
1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Thompson, Gail
1978 Prehistoric Settlement changes in the southern Northwest Coast: A Functional
Approach. Reports in Archaeology #S, Department of Anthropology, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Thorson, Robert M.
1980 Ice -Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade
(Late Pleistocene). Quaternary Research 13:303-321.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
2022 Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
University of California, Davis SoilWeb Map (UC Davis SoilWeb)
n.d. UC Davis California Soil Resource Lab's SoilWeb Interactive map, displaying
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data, available at:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/. Accessed June 2022.
Wessen, Gary
1990 Prehistory of the Ocean Coast of Washington. In Handbook of North American
Indians Vol. 7 Northwest Coast, Edited by W. Settles, PP. 412-421.Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 23
APPENDIX A: SHOVEL PROBE INDEX
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
RESULTS
(CM)
SP 1
0 — 14
Very dark gray gravelly sandy loam
14 -- 30
Dark brown gravelly sandy loam (graded transition from above).
Negative
Glacial.
SP 2
0 — 17
Very dark gray gravelly sandy loam.
17 — 28
Very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam (graded transition from
Negative
above), Glacial.
SP 3
0 — 12
Very dark gray gravelly sandy loam.
12 — 30
Dark brown gravelly sandy loam (graded transition from above).
Negative
Glacial.
SP 4
0-8
Very dark gray gravelly sandy loam.
8 -- 26
Dark brown gravelly sandy loam (graded transition from above).
Negative
Glacial.
SP 5
0 — 19
Very dark gray gravelly sandy loam.
19 — 32
Very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam (graded transition from
Negative
above). Glacial,
Drayton Archaeology Report 0522L 24