Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix J Archeological Analys APPENDIX J ARCHEOLOGICAL, ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS LARSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL! ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES NOVEMBER 2002 KERSEY III EIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES ASSESSMENT, CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON by Kurt W. Roedel Leonard A. Forsman Dennis E. Lewarch Lynn L. Larson Submitted to: Apex Engineering 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98409 Prepared for: City of Auburn Planning Department 25 West Main Auburn, Washington 98001 Copyright @ Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited LAAS Technical Report #2002-21 7700 Pioneer Way, Suite 101 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335-1164 November 8, 2002 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment ABSTRACT Apex Engineering retained Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS) to conduct an archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment of the proposed Kersey III EIS Project, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. LAAS' archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment included archival and literature review, tribal and agency consultation, field reconnaissance of the project area, and production of this technical report. LAAS identified the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), a historic period site that is probably not significant. LAAS did not identify any traditional cultural places through tribal consultation. LAAS determined prior to field reconnaissance that most of the Kersey III EIS project area had a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological deposits because of the project area's steep gradient and lack of a constant water source. However, several portions of the project area are more level and have a moderate probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources. LAAS based the probability on the availability of the landform for hunter-fisher-gatherer use and documented ethnographic and historic Indian land use in the project area vicinity. The Kersey III EIS project area had a moderate probability for historic period archaeological resources that may be significant based on historic records that indicated a farm house and associated buildings had been in the northwest corner of the project area in 1924. LAAS conducted field reconnaissance for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project and recorded the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), which included the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate house foundation, apple and plum trees, and a low density historic artifact scatter. The Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) was the remains of a farm house and associated buildings identified in historic records. Archival records indicated that a hay barn and chicken coop were associated with the farm house, however, LAAS archaeologists did not identify the remains of a hay barn or a chicken coop during field reconnaissance. The Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) is probably not significant because the remains would probably not provide information important to history. LAAS concluded that most of the Kersey III EIS project area has a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources because of the project area's steep gradient and a lack of a constant water source, however, several portions of the project area are more level and have a moderate probability for significant hunter- fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources. The probability for significant historic period archaeological resources is low because the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) is probably not significant, and no other historic archaeological deposits are expected based on historic documentation. LAAS recommends that a professional archaeologist monitor ground disturbing activities through topsoil and into the upper layer of glacial deposits, in five areas for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project. 111 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................... iii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures ............................................................... vi List of Tables ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. vi Acknowledgments ........................................................... vii Introduction .................................................................. 1 Project Description .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Tribal Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Agency Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Cultural Background ........................................................... 7 Previous Cultural Resources Studies ............................................. 7 Archeological Studies ....................................................... 7 Traditional Cultural Places Studies ............................................ 10 Ethnography ............................................................... 10 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Implications for Land Use and Probability for Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer and Historic Period Archaeological Resources ...................................................... 16 Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Traditional Cultural Places ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Field Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Field Results ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) ........................................... 20 Conclusions ................................................................. 22 Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Recommendations ............................................................ 23 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix 1. Individuals and Agencies Contacted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Appendix 2. Tribal Correspondence .............................................37 Appendix 3. Agency Correspondence ............................................43 Appendix 4. Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form (45KI549) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Appendix 5. Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet .......................................55 v Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Kersey III project area .....................................2 Figure 2. Ethnographic place names in the Kersey III project vicinity (Hilbert et al. 2001; Waterman ca. 1920). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 3. Historic period land use in the Kersey III project vicinity (after Metsker 1936; Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 4. Pedestrian transects and shovel probes in the Kersey III project area, and the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) boundary .............................. 19 Figure 5. View of north end of foundation wall and corner stone of the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 6. View of willow tree (left), plum trees (right) and apple tree (background), facing northeast in the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 7. Areas recommended for archaeological monitoring in the Kersey III project area. . .24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Previous Archaeological Resources Studies within Two Miles (3.2 Kilometers) of the Proposed Kersey III Project .........................................8 Table 2. Landowners in the Kersey III Project Area between 1907 and 1958 .............. 14 VI Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LAAS thanks Jeff Mann, Planner, Apex Engineering, for providing maps and information about the project area. James Cross, Senior, Muckleshoot Tribal Monitor, accompanied LAAS archaeologists during field reconnaissance. His help was greatly appreciated. Vll Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment INTRODUCTION Apex Engineering retained Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS) in January 2002, to conduct an archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment for the proposed Kersey III EIS (Kersey III) Project, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. The proposed Kersey III Project includes 167.64 acres in the south half of Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). LAAS identified one archaeological site, the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), that is probably not significant (Appendix 4). LAAS' archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment consisted of archival and literature review, consultation with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), the King County Office of Cultural Resources (OCR), and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, field recOlll1aissance of the project area, and production of this technical report. The City of Auburn proposes to build a subdivision consisting of single family lots and attached dwelling units on approximately 167 acres. The City of Auburn is the lead agency and has determined that the proposed Kersey III Project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment (City of Auburn 2000). The environmental review for the proposed project includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Checklist. The archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment was undertaken to partially comply with SEP A. LAAS archaeologists reviewed environmental, ethnographic, historic, and archaeological data for the proposed Kersey III Project and vicinity, and determined that most of the project area has a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian archaeological resources. However, several portions ofthe project area have a moderate probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian archaeological resources. We based our hypotheses on the availability of the landform for hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic, and historic period land use, documented ethnographic and historic land use in the project vicinity, and the results of previous archaeological resources studies conducted in the project vicinity. The Kersey III project area had a moderate probability for historic period archaeological resources that may be significant based on historic records that indicated a farm house, hay barn, and possibly a chicken coop, were constructed in 1924 in the northwest corner of the project area. Intact archaeological deposits associated with the farm house and other buildings could have provided important historical information regarding upland farming in the White River (now Green River) Valley and/or Depression-era farming. LAAS conducted field reconnaissance of the Kersey III project area and identified the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), a historic period site that included the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate foundation, apple and plum trees, and a low density historic artifact scatter in the northwest corner of the project area. The poured aggregate foundation, a typical foundation construction type in the 1920s and 1930s, was probably the remains of a farm house constructed in 1924 (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002). LAAS did not identify the remains of the hay barn or chicken coop. The house and buildings do not appear on a United States Geological Survey (1994) map, suggesting they were removed or demolished by 1994. The 1 ,.,.". " ~~'~., ': I .~~ ,,' .' , ~JI'.i Ga Farm: ' ~~~ , ,}a!(11)park . . Wit mess ;ar~ i ~'" " ! 2. ~._. . J,H."H::.......--...y7.....'..: ..".~~ , J~ Wi'h't R' .,_..~ .. /~~ .....\""9 fl r ,I elver " "''''~~ \ /,./ -." ~ . jjl . ~:/t7:~ -,:" \ ,,/ .' ':oW: ":"... ~..~/, i /.' .. ': . Balla~d'# \ 0 ; 0 '), I <~~""'-="""'~,'* /A " ,:1 ,Q , />/:; ~ ,i. 1 ' ! i /;,0, .~, '/j/I ~:,., L \ Coal L~ '/ .,. ., (Ji .. --=' "... :".)J ,~ngs RE , 'c!./ /' ~~/-:":'I' ' . )1' '(1)'':'''0' - .~ , 'v / ' . , . .., . ! , / '" 0;' ':/. ~ "I" 1/ '..', // '!j::'::--... f:'.i'l ! I. /j'0 I' . ~ ' '~;:::-- ;i~.~1 '~ffi '1 ~'~~~ I"'\~-( i\( \~.~ -J ,\ ~~o2S I /"'<51/, '\ :'1 .. \ ~ ..... . '''-- 'f,' \' \ "" _ ---..,,-- , ,n.\ \.... .) /" \. \ \'\~ J., "V . ( ""1""-r:-,r- r--:. \ \ )1" ,'--7 . ) . . '\, .' "'~~ ' ~Y"" 'r"I., , 'i 1\ ! /_'--, :;:;- ("", "'........ , , ,,~ i '~ ~ II '"'\ "r ; "-. ':.../ . ,.' ~ :-:J" - ....., 0 // . . ( ",. '-., 1I1tl: 111 ~-~ I ~ '~.~ :. !--',) // . 1. ~ ,~ "I \lUll i /. :..r- ~~+'-Jj ~'-... ':~' . y" ,. .~11 . , " \' ,v/, '/':::::-:-. , ,.' , . . ^ ','" / , , ,/'" ./ "I......... 1"\ ! \f'- 'l. set 1 \11 . \ '1', ' . (/ W,frJ'\..."" '\'\ "'; "l.. I vM \ ~~rM~JJ. ......... J '" .'\AUBURN r r .... \. ,- t ", r '" ~,.": .".~ ' " " \ , \ '.. J\' C)l1:' 11 . --'" . ~'...~' '\\~ ( . .. ~"k~ ~~~~V ~; \ (.' .t.:~:,;:I: J6\.. r.\ ;~';\. '~~:j f. , ~; ;,\'\ I "," /," '~)l ' ':.1'\,9,\1, \.)tL-"~ ,:i:,,- " ;t, I'f f:?'~ '" I I "\. ',~', I ,L 1\ ,I..." ,WJ:--' 1, ....11. : TN: ~ <<; :,C, ...... -1Il';."\ J\U ~ .t~ l! \ \\ \ !" J \., -(. '\ B::' ,\~ 4 ... "- ~ ( \ '\\ I A): ( I~ I ,...., ;..-) . \\'~X'~;' " .. "" " ',/~ ~ \ \J ' ; f: ""- r,;02 \ . .\ '\ "",' , '/ ," \ . J / ~, n l (,' \ ,~~ ' , J~" . ~ r~ 1 ~, \ . '~~'lt i'j~ :\ ~~" / ~.' ,/'J .... ~ (, // ""';>~ ' , ~~frf\' '; A, ; "'\~, \\ ,; jl( t.:-- .' ij. \':"';~ -:::\-;~. "Z2:" ::'1'" .. " ~ y fl }Jffiz~~~~ . , . '" iJ~~~r~~\ '/~ \~.: / (/ L_ i 0 0,25 0,5 I I I I Kersey III Project Area N Mile Base Map from U.S.G.S. Auburn (1994) and Sumner (1973) Quadrangles. Washington Figure 1. Location of the Kersey III project area. 2 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) would probably not provide information important to history, and therefore, is probably not significant. LAAS consulted with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Appendices 1 and 2) regarding possible traditional cultural places in the Kersey III project area, and none were identified, LAAS concluded that most of the Kersey III project area has a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources because of the project area's steep gradient and a lack of a constant water source, however, several portions of the project area are more level and have a moderate probability for significant hunter- fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources. The probability for significant historic period archaeological resources is low because the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) is probably not significant, and other historic period archaeological deposits are not expected based on historic documentation for the project area. LAAS recommends that a professional archaeologist monitor ground disturbing activities through topsoil and into the upper layer of glacial deposits, in five areas in the Kersey III project area. Monitoring would be terminated when the archaeologist determines that soils would not be associated with archaeological deposits, PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Auburn proposes to subdivide seven undeveloped forested parcels into 409 single family lots and 72 attached units in eight tracts, including three divisions with six phases each (City of Auburn 2000:1; Jeff Mann, personal communication 2002), Construction activities will most likely include, but would not be limited to, the excavation of 350,000 cubic yards of soil and the placement of 270,000 yards offill over approximately 124 acres, the filling of approximately 9,104 square feet of on-site forested wetlands, and the removal of all vegetation within the 124-acre construction zone (City of Auburn 2000:1), The remaining 43 acres will remain undeveloped open and/or green space, On-site and off-site installation of new public facilities will probably include water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer lines, wetponds for detention and water quality treatment, the dedication of land for use as a public park, and the dedication and construction of approximately four miles (6.4 kilometers) of new public rights-of- way, including internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way Southeast to Kersey Way (City of Auburn 2000:1). Jeff Mann (personal communication 2002), Planner, Apex Engineering, stated that construction excavation would be deepest along Kersey Way, possibly extending as deep as 20 feet (6.1 meters) below ground surface. METHODOLOGY LAAS conducted an archival review of environmental reports, ethnographic notes and manuscripts, histories, and historic maps of the Kersey III project vicinity on file at LAAS, the University of Washington Libraries, the Tacoma Public Library, the Auburn Public Library, and the Puget Sound Regional Archives. LAAS archaeologists also examined site records and survey reports on file at LAAS and the OAHP for previously recorded hunter-fisher-gatherer and 3 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment historic period archaeological sites within two miles (3,2 kilometers) of the Kersey III project area, and consulted with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe regarding the proposed project. LAAS developed probabilities for hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources in the project area based on environmental, ethnographic, and historic data, and results from previous archaeological studies in the project vicinity. LAAS archaeologists tested their hypotheses during field reconnaissance, and revisited probability estimates based on field observations, We use the term hunter-fisher-gatherer to describe the Indian people who lived in Puget Sound prior to the arrival of Euroamerican settlers, regardless of their tribal associations. We have consulted with local Indian Tribes for many years to determine an appropriate term to describe their ancestors. Indian people do not want their ancestors to be called prehistoric people, which is an ethnocentric term. We routinely use the term hunter-gatherer to refer to Indian people who inhabit environments in the interior of the United States, Tribes in Puget Sound suggested the addition of "fisher" to the descriptor "hunter-gatherer" to reflect the importance of fishing among the Puget Sound Tribes. Puget Sound Indian people view themselves as fishermen as well as hunters and food gatherers. TRIBAL CONSULTATION LAAS initiated tribal consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe by sending a letter to the tribal chairperson and the tribe's designated cultural representative (Appendices 1 and 2), LAAS followed the letter with a telephone call to Melissa Calvert, Director, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife and Cultural Resource Programs, to ask for any comments regarding cultural use of the project area, Ms. Calvert (personal communication 2002) had no comments on the proposed Kersey III Project. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe had previously sent a letter to the City of Auburn Planning Department requesting that a cultural resource assessment be conducted for the proposed Kersey III Project (Hogerhuis 2000) (Appendix 2). In the letter, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe noted the high potential for human burials, seasonal camps, or village sites in the project area (Hogerhuis 2000). LAAS faxed Donna Hogerhuis, Cultural Specialist, to ask if the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe was interested in having a tribal monitor accompany LAAS during field reconnaissance, Warren King George, Muckleshoot Tribal Monitor, visited the project area on the second day offield reconnaissance, but was unable to meet the LAAS archaeologists. James Cross, Senior, Muckleshoot Tribal Monitor, accompanied LAAS archaeologists during the final day offield reconnaIssance, AGENCY CONSULTATION LAAS archaeologists conducted a records search at the OAHP to identify archaeological resources studies conducted in the Kersey III project area vicinity, and hunter-fisher-gatherer or 4 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment historic period archaeological sites within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area (Appendix 1). The City of Auburn, Planning Department, forwarded materials regarding the proposed Kersey III Project to the OAHP, which in turn, recommended an archaeological survey of the project area and consultation with the "concerned tribe" (Appendix 2). LAAS contacted Charles Payton, Community Museum Advisor, King County OCR, to ask for historical information regarding the Kersey III project area (Appendix 1). Mr, Payton (personal communication 2002) said he had no information directly related to the project area. Mr. Payton noted that King County's most productive farmlands were in the White River (now Green River) Valley, however, upland farming was also common. ENVIRONMENT The Kersey III project area is south ofthe White River in the Puget Sound lowland, a broad drift plain with gently rolling topography, divided by the White, Green, Cedar, and Duwamish River valleys (Mullineaux 1970:7). The project area is between 200 and 400 feet (61.0 and 121.9 meters) above the White River, on a north-sloping bluff at the west end of the Enumc1aw Plateau, a relatively level glacial drift plain of sand, silt, and till that was deposited by the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (Dragovich et al. 1994). Geological processes and climate changes since the last glaciation have dramatically altered the project area, affecting floral and faunal communities, and influencing hunter-fisher-gatherer settlement and subsistence patterns, Approximately 18,750 years ago, the Puget Lobe advanced from British Columbia into the Puget Lowland, forming the contemporary Green River-Duwamish River Valley and covering the Kersey III project area with approximately 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) of ice (Porter and Swanson 1998). The Cordilleran Ice Sheet reached a maximum southern extent about 18 miles (30 kilometers) south of Olympia around 17,000 years ago, before receding northward (Porter and Swanson 1998; Thorson 1981), The Auburn vicinity was probably free of ice by 16,500 years ago, The Duwamish River-Green River Valley became a long, steep-sided fjord that geologists designated the Duwamish Embayment (Dunne and Dietrich 1979:A-6), The Kersey III project area is at the southeast end of what was the Duwamish Embayment. Glaciation altered the ancestral White, Green, and Cedar Rivers' courses (Mullineaux 1970:64) and streams that flowed from the retreating glaciers covered the Enumclaw Plateau with sand, gravel, and cobble outwash deposits. Melting ice and streams from retreating glaciers also formed several regional proglaciallakes at the south edge of the retreating ice sheet, submerging present day Auburn (Bretz 1913; Porter and Swanson 1998; Thorson 1981:43, Plate 1). Most ground surfaces in the Auburn vicinity were probably exposed around 15,000 years ago when the last regional pro glacial lake, Glacial Lake Bretz, dropped to the elevation of marine waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Porter and Swanson 1998; Thorson 1981). The weight of glacial ice and pro glacial lakes depressed the 5 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment elevations of ground surfaces in the Auburn vicinity. Land surfaces rebounded after the glacial ice melted and the pro glacial lakes disappeared. Landforms stopped rising relative to the surface elevation ofPuget Sound by approximately 9,000 years ago (Thorson 1981), Around 14,000 years ago, the climate in Western Washington changed from a cool, dry climate to a warmer climate than today with more severe summer droughts, Approximately 6,000 years ago, the regional climate of the Pacific Northwest was a cool, moist Maritime regime similar to today (Brubaker 1991 :23; Whitlock 1992). Dominant vegetation included Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) that developed after 6,000 years ago (Barnosky et al. 1987; Brubaker 1991; Whitlock 1992), The eruption ofMt. Rainier around 5,700 years ago, and the subsequent Osceola Mudflow, a massive lahar, deposited as much as 100 feet (30.5 meters) of clay, sand, gravel, and cobbles over a 195 square mile area (Dragovich et al. 1994:Figure 5; Vallance and Scott 1997), The mudflow shifted the ancestral White River channel north, from the South Prairie Creek channel to the Green River channel. Sediment from the Osceola Mudflow gradually filled the Duwamish-Green River Valley (Dunne and Dietrich 1979; Mullineaux 1970:65). The White River is in the Puyallup Basin and originates from Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier (Mullineaux 1970:28; Williams et al, 1975). Below Buckley, the White River meanders across a broad valley floor to Auburn and contains increasing amounts of high quality spawning and rearing areas (Williams et al. 1975). Salmon species in the White River include chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Onchorynchus kisutch), pink (Oncorhynchus gorbushcha), and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon (Williams et al. 1975), Bowman Creek, a small creek adjacent to the northeast edge of the project area, supports coho and chum salmon (Williams et al. 1975). Williams et al. (1975) listed two unnamed streams that extend north through the project area and join Bowman Creek, however, the streams did not support salmon, according to Williams et al. (1975). The United States Geological Survey map (1994) depicted only one unnamed stream in the project area. In 1906, a debris flow blocked the White River and changed the river channel to the contemporary alignment, draining into the Puyallup River. The debris flow channeled the White River into the Stuck River channel in the Puyallup Valley (Mullineaux 1970:8; Williams et al. 1975). A United States Army Corps of Engineers (1907) map and Metsker (1926, 1936) maps showed the White River channel shifted frequently through time, Mullineaux (1970:67) compared topographic and aerial maps and determined that the White River had migrated across the valley floor as much as 1,000 feet (304,8 meters) within 10 years. Contemporary soils in the Kersey III project area consist of Alderwood series soils, moderately well-drained soils formed in glacial till on glacially modified foothills and valleys (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Soil Survey Division 2002), Alderwood series soils are in areas with slopes between zero and 65 percent and elevations between 50 and 800 feet (15.2 and 243,8 meters) above mean sea level (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Soil Survey Division 2002). Native vegetation associated with Alderwood series soils include Douglas fir, Western hemlock, Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), salal (Gaultheria shallon), 6 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), bracken fern (Pteridium aqulinum), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron Macrophyllum), huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), and orange honeysuckle (Lonicera ciliosa) (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Soil Survey Division 2002). General Land Office notes from the United States General Surveyor (1867b, 1871) described the Kersey III project vicinity soils as second and third rate with some burned timber and a little underbrush. Land in the southwest comer of the project area was rough and rocky with burned vegetation (United States Surveyor General 1871). Vegetation in the Kersey III project area consisted of "burned fir" (Abies sp.), dogwood (Cornus sp,), cedar (Thuja sp,), and undergrowth of vine maple (Acer circinatum), salal, alder (Alnus sp,), bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Oregon grape, bracken fern, nettle (Urtica dioica), skunkweed (Navarretia squarrosa), devil wood (probably devil's club) (Oplopanax horridus), rose (Rosa sp,), and pea (Lathyrus sp.) (United States Surveyor General 1867b, 1871), United States General Surveyor notes and maps (1867a, 1867b, 1872) described and showed a trail extending northeast/southwest across the southeast corner of Section 32, less than 900 feet (274.3 meters) east of the Kersey III project area, Puget Sound Power and Light Company enlarged historic Lake Tapps in 1911 to form the Lake Tapps reservoir and to provide storage water for the Dieringer Powerhouse (Williams et al. 1975). By 1915, a King County-Pierce County flood control project had diked the Stuck River channel, permanently directing water into the Puyallup River. The White River has also been highly channelized and diked for flood control (Williams et al. 1975). CULTURAL BACKGROUND PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES LAAS conducted an archival and literature review of previous cultural resources studies and archaeological site forms on file at the OAHP and LAAS, within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of the proposed Kersey III Project. No previous cultural resources studies have been conducted and . no archaeological sites have been identified in the Kersey III project area, however, 22 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area and four archaeological sites were identified within that distance (Table 1), The White River floodplain and the Enumclaw Plateau are the two major landforms in the Kersey III project area vicinity, accordingly, previous cultural resources studies conducted within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of the Kersey III project area occurred on the White River floodplain (Bard 2000; Hedlund 1977, 1987, 1988; Larson 1985a, 1985b, 1985c; Larson and Grant 1992; Lewarch and Larson 1992; Robbins and Larson 1994; Solimano and Larson 1995; Thompson 7 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment 2000) or the Enumc1aw Plateau (Holt 1986; Iversen et al, 2000; Larson and Phillips 1992; Robinson 1983a, 1983b; Robinson and Bambrey 1997; Stone 2000a, 2000b), Table 1. Previous Archaeological Resources Studies within Two Miles (3,2 Kilometers) of the Proposed Kersey III Project, Author(s) Date Title Cultural Resources Identified NRHP Status Hedlund 1977 Pheasant Farm Site (45KI33). State of Washington Pheasant Farm Site (45KI33) Not eligible. Archaeological Site Inventory Form. Robinson 1983a An Archaeological Reconnaissance of SR164: Fir None Not evaluated Street S,c, to 32nd Street SE Vicinity, Auburn, King County, Washington. Robinson 1983b An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Three None Not evaluated Proposed Alternatives for SR 164: R St. Vicinity to 32nd St. SE Vicinity, Auburn, King County, WA. Larson 1985a A Cultural Resource Assessment of Road Hubers Site (45KI264), Brant Not evaluated Improvements Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, King Site (45KI265) County, Washington. Larson 1985b Hubers Site (45KI264). Master Site File, Fire modified rock (FMR) and Not evaluated historic debris Larson 1985c Brant Site (45KI265). Master Site File, FMR, four flakes Not evaluated Holt 1986 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed R. V. Park None Not eligible. Muck/eshoot Indian Reservation, Washington. Hedlund 1987 Test Excavations of the Auburn Game Farm Site Auburn Game Farm Site Not eligible. (45KI33). (45KI33), previously Pheasant Farm Site (45KI33) Hedlund 1988 Archaeological Resources of Auburn Game Farm Park Isolated hunter-fisher- Not eligible. South of the White River. gatherer/historic artifacts Larson and 1992 Cultural Resource Assessment of the 37th Street Historic structure Not evaluated Grant Southeast/D Street Southeast-East Parcel Project. Larson and 1992 Auburn School District No, 408 Proposed Junior High Historic refuse Not evaluated Phillips Schoo! No. 4 King County, Washington Cultural Resource Assessment. Lewarch and 1992 Cultural Resources Assessment of 31h Street SE and None Not evaluated Larson D Street SE Properly, Auburn, King County, Washington Feasibility Study for Auburn School District No. 408. Robbins and 1994 Cultural Resources Special Inspection of the None Not evaluated Larson Infiltration System Placement and Sanitary Sewer Realignment for the Auburn Riverside Senior High School Project, Auburn, King County, Washington, Solimano and 1995 Addendum to the Seattle- Tacoma Commuter Rail None Not evaluated Larson Project Cultural Resource Assessment for the Auburn BN Yard, BN Tacoma Main Yard, and the Fife UP Yard, Robinson and 1997 Cultural Resource Management Report: Sprint PCS None Not evaluated Bambrey Tower Site, King County, Washington: A Cultural Resources Inventory. Bard 2000 Lake Tapps Parkway Bridge-Cultural Resources. None Not evaluated Hess 2000 Negative Cultural Resources Survey Report - White Modern glass and debris Not evaluated River Crossing Project, King County, Washington, Iversen et al. 2000 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Childcare Facility None Not evaluated Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment, Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, King County, Washington. Stone 2000a Archaeological Survey Conducted at the Swanson Swanson Homes Site (45KI495) Not eligible. Homes Development Site in Section 27 of Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Near Auburn, Washington. Stone 2000b Swanson Homes Site (45KI495). Washington Disturbed prehistoric lithic Not eligible. Archaeological Site Inventory Form. scatter 8 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Table 1. Previous Archaeological Resources Studies within Two Miles (3.2 Kilometers) of the Proposed Kersey III Project (continued), Author(s) Date Title Cultural Resources Identified NRHP Status Thompson 2000 Addendum to Negative Cultura/ Resources Survey None Not evaluated Report - White River Crossing Project, King County, Washington. Nelson 2001 Heritage Resources Investigations for the Evergreen Two historic railroad grades Eligible" Expansion Project, Washington. (45SK244, 45SK245) and two (45SK244, lithic scatters (45KI506, 45K1506, and 45K1507) 45KI507); Not Eligible" (45SK245) NRHP- National Register of Historic Places "Eligible/Not eligible - Reporter Opinion In general, the White River floodplain and the Enumclaw Plateau have a high probability for hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources, Most of the Kersey III project area was probably not attractive to hunter-fisher-gatherers, ethnographic period, and historic Indian populations because of the steepness of the landform and lack of a constant water source, however, ridge landforms in the south portion of the project area and a flat in the northwest portion of the project area are more level and may have been utilized by hunter- fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic period groups as they traversed the project area while following game or to reach the White River Valley or the Enumclaw Plateau. Nelson (2001) conducted a survey in Skagit, Pierce, and King counties that included an area within two miles (3,2 kilometers) of the Kersey III project area, and identified two lithic scatters (45KI506, 45KI507) on the Cedar River floodplain, near Maple Valley, more than two miles (3,2 kilometers) from the Kersey III project area, Four archaeological sites were identified within two miles (3,2 kilometers) of the Kersey III project area: the Auburn Farm Game Site (45KI33), the Hubers Site (45KI264), the Brant Site (45KI265), and the Swanson Homes Site (45KI495). Hedlund (1977, 1987, 1988) recorded the Auburn Game Farm Site (45KI33), previously named the Pheasant Farm Site (45KI33), 0,95 miles (1.5 kilometers) north of the Kersey III project area, on the north bank of the White River floodplain, Hedlund (1977, 1987:8) initially identified stone tools and debris, including scrapers, knives, and a maul, and described the Auburn Game Farm Site (45KI33) as a temporary fishing camp, previously disturbed by natural and manmade causes. Hedlund (1987, 1988) tested the Auburn Game Farm Site (45KI33), and identified additional resources including fifteen cryptocrystalline silica (CCS) stone tools and twenty flakes, historic artifacts, such as glass and nails, and cedar stumps with springboard cuts, Hunter-fisher-gatherer artifacts are probably less than 1,000 years old based on the meander pattern of the White River. Hedlund (1987:8) concluded that the Auburn Game Farm Site (45KI33) was "destroyed" by previous activities, and probably not significant. Larson (1985a, 1985b, 1985c) recorded the Hubers Site (45KI264) and the Brant Site (45KI265), approximately two miles (3.2 kilometers) north of the Kersey III project area, on the Enumclaw Plateau. The Hubers Site (45KI264) was a seasonally reoccupied plant processing camp and Indian homestead with fire modified rock (FMR), earthenware, porcelain, colored bottle glass, 9 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment and wagon road remains (Larson 1985b). The Brant Site (45KI265) was also a seasonally reoccupied plant processing site with FMR and four CCS flakes, including jasper and flint (Larson 1985c). Stone (2000a, 2000b) recorded the Swanson Homes Site (45KI495), a low density hunter-fisher- gatherer lithic scatter consisting of 13 flakes, approximately two miles (3,2 kilometers) northeast of the Kersey III project area, on the Enumclaw Plateau. Agricu1tural~related activities disturbed the Swanson Homes Site (45KI495). TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES STUDIES No traditional cultural places studies have been conducted in the vicinity of the Kersey III project area, based on OAHP records, ETHNOGRAPHY The Kersey III project area is within the aboriginal territory of the Smulkamish, or Upper White River people, and Skopamish, or Green River people, who are ancestors to the contemporary Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ballard 1951:1:31,128,201-203; Waterman ca, 1920). The Kersey III project area is just north of the approximate boundary between the aboriginal territory of the Smulkamish and Skopamish people and the aboriginal Puyallup people (Ballard 1951: 1 :201- 203). The Puyallup lived south of the project area on the banks of the Puyallup River and its tributaries (Smith 1940:9-10), The Kersey III project area is on a bluff rising above the former floodplain of the White and Stuck Rivers, The White and Stuck Rivers formerly ran parallel to one another one mile north of the project area. The Stuck River was a tributary to the Puyallup River, and their confluence was at present Sumner. The White River joined the Green River at present Auburn and formed the White (now Green) River, which flowed north to join the former Black River to form the Duwamish River. The Smulkamish and the Skopamish people fished in the upper White River and the upper Stuck River for salmon (Ballard 1951: 1 : 128, 1957:44-45). Salmon were taken with a variety of devices, including weirs, traps, and spears. Salmon was the primary food source and provided a good portion of the diet, in addition to generous supplements of land game, berries, roots, and shellfish, The Smulkamish and Skopamish people dried salmon as well as other foods over small fires for winter storage, providing them with a food surplus. The surplus supported a lengthy winter residence, which was punctuated by ceremonial events, The Smulkamish and Skopamish built cedar plank houses as their permanent winter dwellings, The houses were occupied in the winter and mostly vacated in the summer, as families left to socialize, trade, and most importantly, gather their winter supply of food. The nearest recorded winter villages to the Kersey III project area were at the present Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, at the former confluence of the Green and White Rivers in present Auburn, and in present Sumner (Waterman ca. 1920). The village at the present Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, known as Daxk, was on Daniels Creek, four miles (6.4 kilometers) southeast of the project area (Ballard 1951:1:31-32; Smith 1940:17; Watermanca, 1920), The Daxk village was one of two 10 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Smulkamish villages; the other was at Boise Creek near Enumclaw (Waterman ca, 1920), The Skopamish village at the former Green and White River confluence in present Auburn, known as ?ilalqWu?, was four miles (6.4 kilometers) northwest of the project area (Hilbert et al. 2001 :147; Waterman ca. 1920). The village at ?ilalqwu? was the Skopamish village nearest to the project area. The Puyallup had a village at the confluence of the former Stuck River and the Puyallup River at present Sumner, known as st~xW, four miles (6.4 kilometers) southwest of the Kersey III project area (Hilbert et al. 2001:258; Smith 1940:10; Waterman ca, 1920), The inhabitants of the st~xW village had strong contacts with the "'Duwamish or White River" people (Smith 1940: 1 0). Ballard (1951:1 :171) recognized the territorial extent of the st~xw village to include the Stuck River from its mouth to just above the present King County/Pierce County line, attributing the upper Stuck River to the Skopamish people, The Skopamish and/or the Smulkamish built historic period houses nearer the project area near White Lake, 2.5 miles (4,0 kilometers) northwest of the project area (Ballard 1951:1:110). Seasonal food gathering activities dominated the spring and summer months. The Skopamish and Smulkamish left the winter villages to hunt land game, fish for salmon, dig roots, and pick berries, A series of interconnected trails enabled overland access to prairies, rivers, lakes, and mountains where groups acquired fish, game, and plants for food. A trailless than 900 feet (274.3 meters) east of the east edge of the project area, shown on the 1867 Government Land Office map (United States Surveyor General 1867a), extended from the Stuck River to the upper plateau of the former Stuck River, This trail may have been an Indian trail used to access Bowman Creek and/or Lake Tapps. The trail may have branched from the "Road from Muckleshoot to Junction of Green and White Rivers," which was also a probable Indian route leading from Muckleshoot Prairie to the ?ilalqWu? village (United States Surveyor General I 867a) (Figure 2). The Skopamish and Smulkamish also gathered medicinal plants, bark, roots, grass used for basketry, and hardwoods used for canoes and house building. The Skopamish and Smulkamish set up seasonal camps, usually consisting of one or more pole-framed structures covered with cattail mats, and drying racks, at the resource gathering areas, The Kersey III project area is on the western edge of Bowman Creek, a stream that supports runs of coho salmon and probably supported runs of chum salmon (Williams et al, 1975:9,201), The ethnographic name for "the stream draining from Lake Tapps," perhaps a reference to Bowman Creek, was the untranslated term, Qubi'~qud (Hilbert et aL 2001 :256-257; Waterman ca. 1920) (Figure 2). Other place names in the project area vicinity included a bluff one mile northeast of the project area known as qW~qwus, meaning "white cliff' (Waterman ca. 1920) (Figure 2), The Stuck River derives its name from st~xW, the same term used to designate the Puyallup village that was at present Sumner, which means "pushing through" (Waterman ca. 1920), The term refers to an ancient story regarding a whale or beaver that carved the riverbed while trying to reach Puget Sound (Smith 1940: 1 0), The Skopamish and Smulkamish were parties to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty and the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty (Lane 1973 :vi). The Skopamish and Smulkamish, along with the Stkamish (Lower White River) and people from upper Puyallup villages, moved to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation after the reservation was established in 1857 (Lane 1973:39; Smith 1940:16), The United States established the reservation a year after the conclusion of the Indian Wars of 1855- 11 (>oj ,.... <lO .... cti ,.... CD <lO ... ~ QI c: QI Cl ... 0 >> QI ~ ' ;;;,-' (/)0 f/lC'l QlO\ ro..... en d ~ 0 'c a ~ E o Cl) ro 4::~ ~ l~ q;: QI ,~ .... f/l..... 0 roO Q) 030 '[ C'l c.. ~ - ..... >. Cl) Q) ~ ~ ~ ..0 ..... .- t.I: '-" I 0 ,- s::: ,- 0 ,- ;> ..... 0 Cl) ''="> 8 0.. - .- - ~ fI) '"" Cl) ~ .s s::: ,- fI) Cl) 0 ~ ..- 0 ~ ..... 0.. 0 :.E ~ ~ :2 6b j N 0 ~ . z ,~ J:.L. 12 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment 1856, a conflict that many of the Skopamish and Smulkamish participated in, The United States enlarged the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation in 1874, primarily to accommodate many of the Duwamish who had remained in their aboriginal territory and not moved to the Port Madison Indian Reservation. Descendants of the groups assigned to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation represent the bulk of the contemporary Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, HISTORY The Kersey III project area is within the city limits of Auburn, Washington, Auburn was originally known as Slaughter, named after Lieutenant William Slaughter, the leader of a contingent of enlisted and volunteer soldiers fighting in the Indian Wars of 1855-56, Slaughter was killed by Indian forces at an encampment near Auburn in 1855 (Meeker 1905:121), Dr. Levi Ballard and his wife, Mary E. Ballard, platted the Town of Slaughter in 1886 (Bagley 1929:1 :712), New residents and visitors who sought a more aesthetic moniker renamed the town Auburn in 1893 (Bagley 1929:1:713). Settlement in Auburn, prior to the Indian Wars, mostly occurred through Donation Land Claims established in the White River floodplain, a primary reason for conflicts between Euroamericans and Indians, including many of the Skopamish, Several of the White River settlers were killed in one of the first attacks of the Indian Wars in the fall of 1855, The early attack and the ensuing Indian Wars slowed settlement of the Auburn area for several years, but many of the early residents returned and were followed by others seeking to establish farms on the fertile floodplain (Vine 1990:19), Early non-native settlement of the Kersey III project vicinity was minimal, and in the late 1870s no settlers were between Auburn and Sumner (Auburn Public Library 1943). Early homestead claims were filed within the project area in the early l890s, but appear to have been abandoned without improvements. This assumption is based on comparison of homestead records (Bureau of Land Management 2002) with the 1907 land ownership map (Anderson Map Company 1907), which do not show the same ownership of the project area over time, Early settlers were known to have claimed abandoned homesteads in the Auburn area in the late 1800s (Auburn Public Library 1943), The first farm families in the Auburn area struggled to make a living, relying on sales of produce and dairy products in Seattle and trading for clothing, shoes, sugar, and coffee (Auburn Public Library 1943). In the 1880s, local farmers began growing hops, which became a large and very profitable industry in the White River Valley (Ballard 1929: 1 :721), Frequent floods from the White River were a constant threat to farmers and residents of the Auburn area. A huge flood diverted the White River into the Stuck River channel, a condition later made permanent through an agreement between King and Pierce Counties, which designed the ultimate solution, a permanent diversion dam in 1914 at the present Auburn Game Farm Park (Dorpat and McCoy 1998:258-259; McDonald 1957:2), The Kersey III project area, safely tucked on an upland above the unpredictable waters of the Stuck and White Rivers, was not prone to flooding, The project area did not accumulate flood silts beneficial to farming and was therefore primarily acquired for forest use, In 1897, the 13 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Kersey III project area was within a zone designated as "burnt area restocking" indicating the forest was burned and was in the process of growing back (United States Geological Survey 1897). A review of land ownership maps, shown in Table 2, documents changes in land ownership in the project area over time. Table 2, Landowners in the Kersey III Project Area Between 1907 and 1958, Name Date Reference Portion of Project Area Fred Jaeger 1907 Anderson Map Company (1907) Owned eastern third of project area. Dan. Williams 1926 Kroll Map Company (1926) Owned western third of project area. G,S. Cruson 1926 Kroll Map Company (1926) Owned central third of project area; retired Auburn resident in 1941 (Witten Printing Company 1941). Fred Jaeger 1926 Kroll Map Company (1926) Owned eastern third of project area. Fred W. Kammeyer 1936 Metsker (1936) Owned western third of project area. G.S. Cruson 1936 Metsker (1936) Owned central third of project area; retired Auburn resident in 1941 (Witten Printing Company 1941), George Oravetz 1936 Metsker (1936) Owned eastern third of project area; owned and operated a charcoal manufacturing operation north of the project area (Vine 1990:56). Federal Farm Mortgage 1940 Kroll Map Company (1940) Owned western third of project area. Corporation G.S. Cruson 1940 Kroll Map Company (1940) Owned central third of project area; retired Auburn resident in 1941 (Witten Printing Company 1941). Andrew Oravetz and 1940 Kroll Map Company (1940) Owned eastern third of project area; Andrew managed the George Oravetz Oravetz family charcoal manufacturing operation (Vine 1990:56). Paul C. Nicholson 1958 Kroll Map Company (1958) Owned western third of project area Marcelo T. Anton 1958 Kroll Map Company (1958) Owned central third of project area; farmed raspberries and beans (Cardwell 1964) Andrew Oravetz 1958 Kroll Map Company (1958) Owned eastern third of project area; managed the Oravetz family charcoal manufacturing operation George Oravetz, who owned the eastern third of the project on present Kersey Way, operated a charcoal plant at Kersey Way (formerly Lake Tapps Road and Oravetz Road), 800 feet (243,8 meters) north of the western third of the project area (Metsker 1936; United States Geological Survey 1949; Vine 1990:56) (Figure 3), The Oravetz Charcoal Manufacturing Company operated six charcoal kilns (Vine 1990:56), transforming multiple cords of alder, maple, and fir into charcoal for gun powder and fireworks and for poultry feed and fertilizer (Vine 1990:56), In 1936, George Oravetz owned approximately 50 acres in the eastern third of the project area and an additional 80 acres north of the northern edge of the project area, which contained the charcoal plant (Metsker 1936; United States Geological Survey 1949). Historic photographs of the charcoal operation showed the brick kilns, an office, and outbuildings north of the project area (Cardwell 1964; Melin Photography ca. 1930; Vine 1990:56), Most of the brick charcoal kilns held up to fifty cords of wood, producing nearly seventeen tons of charcoal after an eleven- day burn (Cardwell 1964). Finnish, German, Swedish, and Bohemian workers chopped most of the wood (Cardwell 1964). The Oravetz Charcoal Manufacturing Company plant burned in 1936 and 1950 and was rebuilt after each fire (Auburn Globe News 1957), George Oravetz and his son, Andrew, owned approximately 140 acres in the project vicinity and while some of the property was used for charcoal operations, most of the acreage was probably used to supply wood to the Oravetz charcoal kilns (Metsker 1936). Marcelo T. Anton owned the central third of the project area and farmed in the 1960s (Cardwell 1964; Kroll Map Company 1958). Anton grew 14 - rA' 6- E ~ :;, .D :;,00 <C_ 'd ~'t: C!Q) ~< ::::> () EI,p 0...... .l::() 10 d CO ;a:p., ~ 4l ,~ m\O <( 10M 000\ t5 - ----,., (]) I-< \. /' "" 'e- ] ,;,--..... .... a. rn - - ~ >- (]) I-< ~ ~ ~ d '-" 0 I ...... J:~E .S () J)ti: ,..... :> z - , OJ () ~ U) Q) '= 8 0.. t::1 - 6- rn l() ~ .. c:i ] - ,S l() ~ Q) N rn c:i :E ::l ] - "0 0 0 't: Q) 0.. () 't: 0 - . Z rn ,- ~ M , ~ OJ) .- ~ 15 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment raspberries, beans, and fir and cypress shrubs, and often sun-dried beans in front of his house, built along Kersey Way (Cardwell 1964; Kroll Map Company 1958; Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961), Historic maps (Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961; United States Geological Survey 1949) showed several buildings in the northwest corner of the Kersey III project area (Figure 3). Puget Sound Regional Archives (2002) parcel assessment and photographs indicated the buildings were a farm house, a hay barn, and a chicken coop. The farm house and hay barn were constructed in 1924, however, a date of construction for the chicken coop was not available, The property was first assessed in 1939 and belonged to Paul Nicholson, who probably purchased the property from the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, The farm house and associated buildings may have been built by Daniel Williams, indicated as the property owner in 1926 (Kroll Map Company 1926). The farm house was a single-story building with six rooms, two porches, and a detached garage (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002), A single-story hay barn with a post and pier foundation and wood floor, and chicken coop with a wood frame and floor construction, appear to have been approximately 200 feet (61.0 meters) south of the house (Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961). The property was last assessed in 1973 (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002). The farm house, hay barn, and chicken coop do not appear on a United States Geological Survey (1994) map, suggesting that buildings were removed or demolished between 1973 and 1994. The development of roads in the Auburn area was difficult because of flooding and the marshy condition oflocallands. Early roads shown on government surveys included the "Road from Puyallup to White River," 0,6 miles (0,96 kilometers) west of the project area and the "Road from Muckleshoot to Junction of Green and White Rivers," 2,25 miles (3,6 kilometers) east of the project area (United States Surveyor General 1867a) (Figure 2), Present Kersey Way ran along the north side of the project area in 1907 (Anderson Map Company 1907), replacing a path shown crossing the project area in 1897 (United States Geological Survey 1897), Kersey Way, originally known as the Stuck River Road (Kroll Map Company 1958), was renamed Lake Tapps Road South (Kroll Map Company 1971) before being designated Kersey Way, The Chehalis to Covington section of the Bonneville Power Administration transmission, constructed in the late 1930s by Works Progress Administration laborers, was shown passing through the eastern half of the project area in 1940 (Dorpat and McCoy 1998:298; Kroll Map Company 1940). IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AND PROBABILITY FOR HUNTER-FISHER- GATHERER AND HISTORIC PERIOD ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Kersey III project area would probably have been available to the first hunter-fisher- gatherers by around 15,000 years ago, when Glacial Lake Bretz dropped in elevation, exposing most ground surfaces in the Auburn vicinity. The Osceoll'}. Mudflow shifted the White River channel north, from the South Prairie Creek channel to the Green River channel, around 5,700 16 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment years ago. The White River occupied this channel until 1906, when the river was diverted into the Stuck River channel. The Kersey III project area is between 200 and 400 feet (61.0 and 121.9 meters) above the contemporary White River, on a north-sloping bluff at the northwest end of the Enumclaw Plateau, The bluffwas most likely created by the meandering White River, which eroded Osceola Mudflow and glacial deposits. The White River channel most likely eroded hunter-fisher-gatherer deposits prior to 5,700 years ago, After 5,700 years ago, hunter-fisher- gatherers probably did not utilize the project area intensively because of the steep gradient and lack of a constant water source, however, hunters may have followed animals into the project area or traversed the project area to access the White River Valley or Enumclaw Plateau. Hunter- fisher-gatherers may have utilized more level landforms as they crossed the project area hunting game, or traveling from temporary fishing camps on the White River to hunt or gather berries and roots in higher elevations on the Enumclaw Plateau, Although salmon may not have been available in the project area, salmon probably ran in the former Stuck River, the White River, and near the confluence of Bowman Creek and the White River. Archaeological materials in the project area might include low density lithic scatters in more level areas, including ridges in the south portion of the project area and a flat in the northwest corner, Most of the Kersey III project area has a low probability for significant ethnographic period and historic Indian archaeological resources based on the topography of the landform and ethnographic and historic data, However, level portions of the project have a moderate probability for significant ethnographic period and historic Indian archaeological resources, Historic maps showed that an Indian trail, less than 900 feet (274.3 meters) east of the east edge of the project area, extended from the White River to the Enumclaw Plateau, and was most likely used to access resources near historic Lake Tapps. Groups may have crossed level portions of the project area to hunt land game or to access higher elevation plants and animals, Significant ethnographic and historic Indian archaeological deposits would probably be similar to those of hunter-fisher-gatherers, and may include low density lithic scatters, fire modified rock, and/or hearths, The Kersey III project area has a moderate probability for historic period archaeological resources that may be significant based on historic maps that showed residential and farming buildings had been in the northwest comer of the project area since 1924. Most of the project area was probably burned and in a state of regeneration during the late 1800s and early 1900s, and therefore, the project area was probably unattractive to early settlers, Significant historic period archaeological deposits may include farming-related tools, foundations, and/or domestic household items with a spatial context. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PLACES LAAS did not identify any traditional cultural places in the Kersey III project area through consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. 17 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment FIELD RECONNAISSANCE FIELD METHODS LAAS archaeologists Lisa Kelley and Kurt Roedel conducted field reconnaissance of the Kersey III project area on July 29,31, August 1, and October 2,2002. Prior to field reconnaissance, Jeff Mann, Apex Engineering, provided LAAS with a topographic map of the project area, LAAS archaeologists placed pedestrian transects and shovel probes in areas more likely to have archaeological deposits, including relatively level ridges in the south portion of the project area and a flat in the northwest portion of the project area (Figure 4). Warren King George, Cultural Monitor, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, attempted to join LAAS archaeologists in the field on July 31, 2002, but was unable to locate the archaeologists, James Cross, Senior, Cultural Monitor, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, met the LAAS archaeologists on-site on August 1, 2002, and conducted field reconnaissance of the Kersey III project area with them. Mr, Roedel and Ms. Kelley traversed pedestrian transects between five and 25 meter (16.4 and 82.0 feet) intervals and excavated shovel probes in intervals between approximately five and 25 meters (16.4 and 82,0 feet) along selected transects, LAAS archaeologists varied transect intervals and shovel probe distances when dense vegetation, downed logs, and road disturbances were present. Shovel probes were approximately 35 centimeters (13.8 inches) wide and were excavated to between six and 70 centimeters (2.4 and 27.6 inches) below ground surfaces, depending on subsurface conditions. LAAS archaeologists screened matrices from shovel probes through lI8-inch mesh mounted on a shaker screen. Mr. Roedel and Ms, Kelley photographed the project area and recorded observations regarding subsurface stratigraphy, disturbances, topography, and vegetation on LAAS Shovel Probe Forms, Daily Tracking Logs, and Photograph Logs. All forms and photographs are on file at LAAS. FIELD RESULTS LAAS archaeologists identified one historic period archaeological site, the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) (Appendix 4), on a grassy, northeast sloping bluff, in the northwest corner of the Kersey III project area. The Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) consisted of the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate house foundation, apple and plum trees, and a low density historic artifact scatter, Vegetation in the Kersey III project area included alder, bigleafmaple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Douglas fir, vine maple (Acer circinatum), Western hemlock, willow (Salix sp,), apple and plum trees, raspberry (Rubus sp.), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), huckleberry, nettles (Urtica sp,), Oregon grape, salal, salmonberry (Rubus sp,), Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursin us), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), bracken fern, swordfern, various flowering plants, and tall grasses. A Bonneville Power Administration easement for high-tension power lines dissected the project area. Vegetation in the easement consisted of foxglove, Oregon grape, 18 N C Q) g .Q Q) Q) N (U Q) ~ E "0 ~ ::J C .... 3: .g-. ::J '5..Q <C 0'\ u.o .... '5 ....-.:t u.:> oll) ......... + * 5 t2 Ell) .g~ __ (1J ~ ..,,, :!: . .... .5 Q) r:n .... -Q) C m ~m1l 0"0 -~ alu " C 0. U Iii' c ~ 2 .. .. 0 '" C "0 ,Q ~C11 ,_ 0 0 "0 C '" (f) C:> .3 !ij U .. ,g " ,~ al~ 2"'~ ~*S~ '" " 5 .0 >,'>< to>" c '" 1;; 0 .1l j1l :Ii is ~ i1j l!! ~ E m 0 .... () I- ..... .... ....0 I - .. a> a. ' I" :;:: Lev . I. t> '" '" I I ;> E~ " ~'" ~ =~ '" "0 ;;: .8 13 '" e.o C'd a. e J _ a. <l) Q) - J::: > Q) ...... ro 0 > .... Q) !/) (j).c 0 C) ...._ .c Q) <( C) "0 (j) '0' u~Q)"O ~ Q) C C Q) ..... '0' ro Q) C ..... ...t=~Q) l=1 a. 0 ~ _cCI)O ~ = .!Y Q) CI) CII >oJ:::; > ," ;... Q)!/)+:;> Q) !/) Q) ro +:; ....,4 .... "0 0>'- ~ ~cf~~ .s I : o. ,9 . CII : ..8 8 p. g ~ o 0 ~ ...s::: CII "tj , a CII .... o Q) .... CII ~ ~ l::: C'd 'E CII Q) "tj Q) o ~ . z ~~ ~9 '.... 0 ~.o 19 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment trailing and Himalayan blackberry, and tall grasses and shrubs, The easement was void of tall trees to prevent interference with power lines, Soils on sloped, densely forested areas consisted ofa five to 10 centimeter (2.0 to 3.9 inch)-thick layer of forest duff above glacial till, a dry, brown fine sand (7.5YR 4/3) with naturally-broken cobbles and round pebbles (Shovel Probes 1-47 and 56-58) (Figure 4), Pebbles and cobbles averaged greater than 50 percent of the screened matrices. Charcoal was common in many shovel probes, but was not associated with burned soil, FMR, lithic tools, or other artifacts, LAAS archaeologists identified isolated artifacts, including a clear bottle glass fragment, an opaque, white plastic fragment, and a small, unmodified rodent bone in shovel probes in the forested upland areas of the project area, LAAS also identified modern refuse, including amber beer bottles and food wrappers, and illegally dumped refuse, including abandoned cars, electronic devices, and other miscellaneous items, along the edge of dirt roads that traversed the Kersey III project area. The archaeologists did not observe any streams in drainages in the project area, indicating the unnamed streams are ephemeral. LAAS archaeologists observed similar matrices in shovel probes placed in an unforested, relatively level area in the northwest corner of the project area (Shovel Probes 48-55 and 59-64) (Figure 4), Matrices consisted of a 10 centimeter (3.9 inch)-thick root mat above glacial till, a yellowish-brown (10 YR 5/4) fine sand, but with fewer large, round cobbles than observed in higher elevations of the project area, WILLIAMS FARMSTEAD SITE (45KI549) The Williams Farmstead Site consisted of the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate foundation, approximately 70 feet (21.3 meters) long, between six and 12 inches (15.2 to 30,5 centimeters) wide, and approximately 50 feet (15,2 meters) east ofa dirt road that extends through the site boundary (Figure 4 and Appendix 4), The foundation was beneath a thick root mat and was oriented northwest/southeast. Artifacts adjacent to the foundation included orange brick fragments, clear bottle, window, and chimney glass fragments, a large iron bolt, and an unidentifiable metal object. An eight-foot long railroad tie and a large flat section of poured aggregate, possibly a sidewalk, were adjacent to the west side of the foundation wall. An angled corner stone was at the northwest end of the foundation wall and was the northwest corner of the house foundation (Figure 5). The LAAS archaeologist did not identify additional foundation walls. Four apple trees, five plum trees, and a willow tree were recorded as part of the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), and were most likely associated with the former residence (Figures 4 and 6). The apple trees were within 200 feet (61.0 meters) of the foundation wall, and a large willow tree and five plum trees were approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) northeast of the foundation wall. An aerial map (Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961) showed two buildings, probably the hay barn and the chicken coop described in parcel assessment records (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002), approximately 200 feet (61.0 meters) south of the farm house, adjacent to the 20 ---- Figure 5. View of north end of foundation wall and corner stone of the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549). I I I I I I ! I Figure 6. View of willow tree (left), plum trees (right), and apple tree (background), facing northeast in the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549). 21 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment dirt road that extends through the project area and site boundaries (Figure 4), The LAAS archaeologist placed shovel probes in the general vicinity of the former buildings, in an area of dense, young alder trees and tall grasses, The LAAS archaeologist did not identify the foundation remains of the hay barn or the chicken coop, however, a low density historic artifact scatter was in the approximate location of the hay barn and chicken coop. The scatter consisted of a plain white earthenware fragment, a thin rusted wire, and clear bottle glass fragments (Shovel Probes 62 and 63), and a modem Budweiser beer can and Gatorade plastic bottle on the ground surface (Figure 4), Additional historic artifacts identified in shovel probes within the site boundaries of the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) included a plain white earthenware fragment, three wire nails, white painted wood, and 49 clear bottle and window glass fragments (Shovel Probes 50, 51, and 54) (Figure 4), LAAS archaeologists identified modern debris including blue, gray, and red plastic fragments, and aluminum foil, above historic artifacts in shovel probes, In addition, LAAS archaeologists observed modern debris on the ground surface in the vicinity of the willow tree that included a clear mason jar, a plastic plant pot, mini-blinds, and a plastic baby toy, CONCLUSIONS Apex Engineering retained LAAS to conduct an archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project, City of Auburn, King County, Washington, LAAS' archaeological resources and traditional cultural places assessment consisted of archival and literature review, tribal and agency consultation, field reconnaissance of the project area, and production of this technical report, LAAS archaeologists reviewed environmental, ethnographic, historic, and archaeological data for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project and vicinity, and determined that most of the project area has a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources based on the availability of the landform for hunter-fisher-gatherer use, documented ethnographic and historic land use in the project vicinity, and the results of previous archaeological resources studies conducted in the project vicinity, More level landforms, including ridges in the south portion of project area and a flat in the northwest portion of the project area have a moderate probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological resources. The Kersey III EIS project area had a moderate probability for significant historic period archaeological resources based on historic records that indicated a farm house and associated buildings had been in the northwest corner of the proj ect area. WILLIAMS FARMSTEAD SITE (45KI549) LAAS conducted field reconnaissance for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project and identified and recorded the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549), a historic period archaeological site that is probably not significant. LAAS archaeologists identified the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate foundation, apple and plum trees, and a low density historic artifact scatter in 22 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment the northwest corner of the project area, The Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549) would probably not provide information important to history, and therefore, is probably not significant. Based on the results of field reconnaissance, LAAS determined that the Kersey III EIS project area has a low probability for significant historic period archaeological resources, LAAS concluded that most of the Kersey III EIS project area has a low probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological deposits because of the project area's steep gradient and lack of a constant water source, however, several relatively level areas, including ridges and a flat, have a moderate probability for significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic Indian archaeological deposits, LAAS did not identify any possible traditional cultural places in the Kersey III EIS project area through consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. RECOMMENDATIONS . LAAS extends no further recommendations for the Williams Farmstead Site (45KI549). The site consisted a portion of a foundation, several apple and plum trees, and a low density historic artifact scatter that together would not provide information important to history, and therefore, is probably not significant. . LAAS recommends that a professional archaeologist monitor ground disturbing activities through topsoil and into the upper layer of glacial deposits, in five areas for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project (Figure 7). Monitoring would be terminated when the archaeologist determines that soils would not be associated with archaeological deposits that may be significant, . In the event that hunter-fIsher-gatherer or historic period archaeological deposits and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered during construction excavation in any portion of the proposed Kersey III EIS Project, ground disturbing activities should be halted immediately in an area large enough to maintain integrity of the deposits, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the OAHP, the City of Auburn, and a professional archaeologist should be immediately notified. Treatment of the archaeological deposits or human remains would be coordinated through consultation among these parties. 23 C\l o o C\l c: :s ~ -.. .~ ~ ~Vp'\~ * g 0 ~~'; j' _' . ...... 8 t, "~i,;=' :2: ~~ ,/I =f::::.... '. .E ('T.. ,.j,. ,/' -g 'I.';"'~ "0 . /'/-3':,:' c: . /kI','\\\ ;/., i'X',;; )" Q) X/ {~~ 1,'(, ( 1/ ~ 1/; / ,); 0 ~ r,' 'fit Q) ., J} //, 0::: ~' ~ :~)HI .. ';f'}:~ 'i? l/1~u[~ m \~.\' \, ~ ~\\ 'Ii, ~. "'" y ~ d "',' f ~ o ( I /{ t;3 r ~ ~ ..... ( .9~ .~ \\ ,\ l,\ ,.'~~ I ". 8 K~\\\>) . ~ , , \<>.: '..' ,) m ..... ,.- \;) ! /,; ", l=l ~.. \ >' ~ <\Q".~ -<; I' ) .,' ..... Ol ...... 11 \ i : ...... c: Q) ........ ~~ ~...' \\\ J.i ii.liI /. /...... .- - ~ ,~'.' ~~~~~ iI /,!};,///;<.~ j ~ ~ . ' ," \ rr.~: :;/,{ '//<;::: e () 8 ~ At ,,; ,. ~ a.. C:'-" ' j ;;.~,. " \\ ,,~- -',-.;; f/) f/) "'" .} ,."\' ~II = "0 0 UJ ..c: ::<,' - ro +:;.- ..... (f,"~:\ ~1"1 ~ &. '* ~ ,8 j(~ .i'~;if'{-;XJ,s~.., ~ '.~' ,;' ," '< ~ ~ g> ~ .~ < f.li"'; 8i \~, W,:\\!l ~J~ \/ ',', ...', ~ 0 :> I- !-. ,:\: >i:, F~'.., . , I'.s t"j, :r,.;:; W ~~lwt~ ~i l:oj.... '" '. I; I · . ~ '.D-;;~':',,;;~'; ~';., ':-::",~;. S (t . '.., .. <\ ~,~." i _ :. 'i\ J 0 ~ rJr'; I,,; ~ ,<!;\) \ ~ j '~':.~.I\"" ;':2) ~::.,;\( g ~ :~, ~ % c.{ ~ ,.. ",.'.' (!j;,'f'f.) ;i~~~~ m ~ " u. '"d ,":"';';:'0 f~" ......,.0,.\. ....... ~ C..": r:,'...,:...;:'... v ...., ~:,;,;p;.:...~< "':: 5 :iJi" > 0 :;(}:,?' . . ~ S . ",;jS 'i!'X / ./ S ...., ...'....:;;.7;:/.":.../ ..> 8 ';'/'::>:;;..,... iFf ':~. ,,,.,, .... 0 ~ ice"':":..",,,.: ..... "';X;".' ""' I~.::.....,..:..;>, z ~ ~ .. < t' ~ OJ) ~ 24 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson Map Company 1907 Atlas of King County, Washington, Anderson Map Company, Seattle. Auburn Globe News 1957 Andrew Oravetz, Businessman, Dies Saturday. Auburn Globe News. 28 February. Auburn Public Library 1943 Story of White River Valley Interwoven with Life of Pioneer. Newspaper Obituary on file in Pamphlet Files, Auburn Public Library, Auburn, Washington. Bagley, Clarence B. 1929 History of King County, Vol. 1. SJ. Clarke Publishing Company, Seattle, Ballard, Arthur C. 1929 Mythology of South em Puget Sound, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, Volume 1, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1951 Deposition of Oral Examination of Arthur Condict Ballard in Muckleshoot Tribe of Indians on Relation of Napoleon Ross, Chairman of the General Council, Claimant v. The United States of America, Defendant. 2 vols, Heard before the Indian Claims Commission of the United States, 26-28 November, Seattle, Washington, Carolyn T, Taylor, Court Reporter, Seattle. 1957 The Salmon Weir on Green River in Western Washington, Davidson Journal of Anthropology 3:37-53, Bard, James 2000 Lake Tapps Parkway Bridge-Cultural Resources, Technical Memorandum from CH2M Hill to Pat Baughman, Transportation Services, Tacoma. Barnosky, Cathy W., Patricia M. Anderson, and Patrick J, Bartlein 1987 Chapter 14: The Northwestern U,S, During Deglaciation; Vegetational History and Paleoclimatic Implications. In The Geology of North America, Volume K-3: North America and A4jacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation, edited by W, F, Ruddiman and Herbert E. Wright, Jr., pp. 289-321, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Bretz, J. Harlen 1913 Glaciation of the Puget Sound Region. Washington Geological Survey, Bulletin No.8, Olympia, 25 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Brubaker, Linda B. 1991 Climate Change and the Origin of Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests in the Puget Sound Lowland. In Wildlife and Vegetation of Unman aged Douglas-Fir Forests, edited by Leonard F. Ruggiero, Keith B. Aubry, Andrew B. Carey, and Mark F, Huff, pp, 17-24, U.S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285, Portland, Bureau of Land Management 2002 Land Patent Details. Bureau of Land Management-General Land Office Records web site, Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Accession /Serial Nos. W ASAA 067848, W ASAA 067851. www.glorecords,blm.gov/ 5 September. Cardwell, Rod 1964 Stuck River's Halloween Hollow, The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger, 25 October:A-16. City of Auburn 2000 Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS, File Number: SEPOO-0040, City of Auburn, Planning Department, Auburn, Washington, 2002 Kersey III EIS Project Area Topographic Map, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. City of Auburn, Auburn, Washington Dorpat, Paul and Genevieve McCoy 1998 Building Washington: A History of Washington State Public Works, Tartu Publications, Seattle, Dragovich, Joe, D" Patrick T, Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh 1994 Extent and Geometry of Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland: Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography, Washington Geology 22 (3):3-26. Dunne, Thomas and William E. Dietrich 1979 Technical Appendix A. Geology and Hydrology of the Green River, In River of Green, edited by Jones and Jones, Seattle, pp, A-1-A-33, Jones and Jones, Seattle. Prepared for King County Division of Planning, Department of Planning and Community Development, Seattle, Hedlund, Gerald C, 1977 The Pheasant Farm Site (45Kl33). State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1987 Test Excavations of the Auburn Game Farm Site (45Kl33). Prepared for the City of Auburn Parks Department, City of Auburn, Washington, 26 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment 1988 Archaeological Resources of Auburn Game Farm Park South of the White River, Prepared for the Parks Department, City of Auburn, Washington, Hess, Sean 2000 Negative Cultural Resources Survey Report - White River Crossing Project, King County, Washington. Letter report from Historical Research Associates, Incorporated, Seattle, to Ms. Leslie Degner, Williams Gas Pipeline-West, Longview, Washington, 23 February. Hilbert, Vi, Jay Miller and Zalmai Zahir 2001 Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman. Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way, Washington. Hogerhuis, Donna 2000 SEPOO-0040 Subdivision SW Auburn. Letter from Donna Hogerhuis, Cultural Specialist, Wildlife and Cultural Resource Programs, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington to Paul Krauss, Planning Department, City of Auburn, Auburn, Washington, 17 October. Holt,H.Barry 1986 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed R. V. Park Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, Washington. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Iversen, David R" Dennis E, Lewarch, and Leonard A. Forsman 2000 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Childcare Facility Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment, Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, King County, Washington. Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited, Gig Harbor, Washington, LAAS Technical Report #2000-05. Submitted to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington, Kroll Map Company 1926 Kroll's Atlas of King County, Kroll Map Company, Seattle, 1940 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. 1958 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle, 1971 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. Lane, Barbara 1973 Anthropological Report on the Identity and Treaty Status of the Muckleshoot Indians. Report prepared for the U,S, Department of the Interior and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Ms, on file at Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. 27 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Larson, Lynn L. 1985a A Cultural Resource Assessment of Road Improvements Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle, Submitted to the United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Puget Sound Agency, Everett. 1985b Hubers Site (45Kl264). Master Site File. On file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1985c Brant Site (45Kl264). Master Site File, On file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Larson, Lynn L. and David Grant 1992 Cultural Resource Assessment of the 37th Street Southeast/D Street Southeast-East Parcel Project. Letter report from Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle to Mr. Tom Howard, William Polk Associates, Seattle. Larson, Lynn L. and Laura Phillips 1992 Auburn School District No. 408 Proposed Junior High School No.4 King County, Washington Cultural Resource Assessment, Larson Anthropologicall Archaeological Services, Seattle. Technical Report 92-4. Prepared for Auburn School District No. 408, Auburn, Washington. Lewarch, Dennis E, and Lynn L. Larson 1992 Cultural Resources Assessment of 37th Street SE and D Street SE Property, Auburn, King County, Washington Feasibility Study for Auburn School District No. 408. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Technical Report 92-6. Prepared for Auburn School District No, 408, Auburn. McDonald, Lucile 1957 The River Nobody Wanted, Seattle Sunday Times Magazine Section. 27 January:2, Meeker, Ezra 1905 Pioneer Reminiscences of Puget Sound, Lowman and Hanford, Seattle. Melin Photography ca. Photograph of Oravetz Charcoal Operations, Photo No, 7475. Melin Photography, 1930 Auburn, Washington, On file at the White River Valley Museum, Auburn. Metsker, Charles 1926 Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company, Seattle, 1936 Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company, Seattle. 28 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Mullineaux, Donal R. 1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington. A Study of Cenozoic Bedrock and Surficial Deposits in the Southeastern Park of the Puget Sound Lowland. Geological Survey Professional Paper 672, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, Nelson, Margaret A. 2001 Heritage Resources Investigationsfor the Evergreen Expansion Project, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Incorporated, NW AA Report W AO 1-34, Report prepared for PIC Technologies, Incorporated, Denver, and Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Salt Lake City. Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961 Aerial Photo of King and Pierce County. Photo No. A-95-17-4, flown 7 August. On file at Maps Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Porter, Stephen C, and Terry W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet during the Last Glaciation, Quaternary Research 50:205-213. Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002 Parcel Datafor Parcel No. 322105-9010, City of Auburn. Puget Sound Regional Archives, Bellevue. Robbins, Jeffrey R. and Lynn L. Larson 1994 Cultural Resources Special Inspection of the Infiltration System Placement and Sanitary Sewer Realignment for the Auburn Riverside Senior High School Project, Auburn, King County, Washington. Letter report from Larson Anthropological! Archaeological Services, Seattle, to Mr, Jeffrey Grose, Auburn School District No, 408, Auburn, 22 August. Robinson, Joan M. 1983a An Archaeological Reconnaissance ofSR 164: Fir Street S.E. to 32nd Street S.E. Vicinity, Auburn, King County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. 1983b An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Three Proposed Alternatives for SR 164: R St. Vicinity to 32nd St. S.E. Vicinity, Auburn, King County, WA. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Robinson, Joan and Lucy Hackett Bambrey 1997 Cultural Resource Management Report: Sprint PCS Tower Site, King County, Washington: A Cultural Resources Inventory. Powers Elevation Company, Incorporated, Aurora, Colorado, and Rice & Robinson, Redmond, Washington. Prepared for Delta Environmental Consultants, Incorporated, Denver. 29 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Smith, Marian W, 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 32, Columbia University Press, New York. Solimano, Paul S. and Lynn L. Larson 1995 Addendum to the Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Assessment for the Auburn BN Yard, BN Tacoma Main Yard, and the Fife UP Yard, Letter report from Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, to Mr, Kris Liljeblad, BRW, Incorporated, Seattle, 25 January. Stone, Robert P. 2000a Archaeological Survey Conducted at the Swanson Homes Development Site in Section 27 of Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Near Auburn, Washington. Letter report from BOAS, Incorporated, Seattle, to Mr, Dan Swanson, Issaquah, 2000b Swanson Homes Site (45K1495). Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, On file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Thompson, Gail 2000 Addendum to Negative Cultural Resources Survey Report - White River Crossing Project, King County, Washington, Letter report from Historical Research Associates, Incorporated, Seattle, to Kirt Rhoads, Williams Gas Pipeline-West, Salt Lake City, Utah, Thorson, Robert M, 1981 Isostatic Effects of the Last Glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-370, United States Geological Survey 1897 Land Classification Sheet, Tacoma, Washington Quadrangle, United States Geological Survey, Tacoma, Washington, 1949 Auburn Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1994 Auburn Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, 1973 Sumner Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Soil Survey Division 2002 Official Series Descriptions, URL: ''http://www.statlab.iastate,edu/soils/osd'' 18 March, 30 Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment United States Surveyor General 1867a General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1867b General Land Office Survey Notes, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1871 General Land Office Map, Township 20 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1872 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Vallance, James W. and Kevin M, Scott 1997 The Osceola Mudflow from Mount Rainier: Sedimentology and Hazard Implications of a Huge Clay-Rich Debris Flow. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 109, No, 2:143-163. Vine, Josephine Emmons 1990 Auburn, a Look Down Main Street. The City of Auburn, Auburn, Washington. Waterman, T, T. ca. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file Pacific Northwest 1920 Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle, Whitlock, Cathy 1992 Vegetational and Climatic History of the Pacific Northwest during the Last 20,000 Years: Implications for Understanding Present-Day Biodiversity, The Northwest Environmental Journal 8:5-28, Williams, R. Walter, Richard M. Laramie, and James J, Ames 1975 Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Witten Printing Company 1941 Auburn City Directory, March 1941. Witten Printing Company, Auburn, Washington, On file at the White River Valley Museum, Auburn. 31 ApPENDIX 1 INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Individuals and Agencies Contacted Anderson, Rick, Records Manager, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, fax, October 29,2002, Calvert, Melissa, Director, Wildlife and Cultural Resource Programs, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, telephone, September 16, 2002. Cross, James, Sr., Cultural Monitor, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, meeting, August 1,2002, Hill, Zee, Administrative Assistant, Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, meeting, July 17 and 22, 2002. Hogerhuis, Donna, Cultural Specialist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, telephone, August 1, 2002. King George, Warren, Cultural Monitor, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, telephone, July 31,2002, Mann, Jeff, Planner, Apex Engineering, telephone, July 17,24, and September 13,2002; e-mail, July 23,25, and August 2,2002. Martin, Sean, Planner II, City of Auburn Planning Department, telephone, August 2, 2002. Payton, Charles, Community Museum Advisor, King County Office of Cultural Resources, telephone, September 25,2002, Stairs, Phil, Research Assistant, Puget Sound Regional Archives, telephone, October 4, 2002, ApPENDIX 2 TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE l A A S LARSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES LIMITED July 30, 2002 John Daniels Jr, Chairperson Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, Washingt(~m 98002-9763 Subject: Kersey m EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment r Dear Mr, Daniels: Apex Engineering has retained Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LMS) to conduct an archaeological resources and traditional cultura! places assessment for the - -./ - proposed Kersey III EIS Project, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. The proposed project covers approximately 168 acres in Section 32, Township 21 North, RangeS East, Willamette Meridian (Figur~ 1), The Kersey III project area is on a sloping bluff south of the ~ White River with the south edge of the project area on the' King-Pierce County Line~ ~ The City of Auburn proposes to subdivide seven undeveloped forested parcels into 409 single family lots and 18 lots that WIll support 72 attached dwelling units. Construction activities will likely include, but are not limited to, the excavation of 350,000 cubic yards of soil and the - , placement of 270,000 yards offill over approximately 124 acres~ the filling of approximately 9,100 square feet of on-site forested wetlands, and the removal of all vegetation within the 124- acre construction zone, The remaining 44 acres of the 168 acres will be undisturbed, On-site' - and off-site installation of new public facilities mayinc1ude water, storm sewer,- and sanitary sewer lines, wetponds for detention and water quality treatment, the dedication of land for a public park, and the construction of approximately four miles of new public rights-of-way, - including internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way Southeast to Kersey W ay, Cons~ction excavatio~ may be as deep as 20 feet below ground surface along Kersey Way, - The archaeological assessment is being undertaken to comply with the City of Auburn's preparation of a State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement (SEP A EIS), The City of Auburn is the lead agency for the proposed project. ,~ ,< " " 7700 PIONEER WAY / SUITE 101 /' GIG HARBOR ,~ WASHINGTON " r~ 98335.1164 TEL: (253 la58. 104 n , ^. '."._~'.~.,~~~"__,_~ _"._.-"",~~-JA."'~...._"" #A ....... '" LAAS' archaeological and traditional cultural places assessment for the proposed Kersey III EIS Project consists of archival and literature review, field reconnaissance, and production of a technical report, Weare gathering existing archaeological, historic, ethnographic, and historic Indian data from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, King County Libraries, and University of Washington Libraries, However, we are aware that the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe may have information gathered from elders regarding the project area and/or the Tribe may currently use areas for traditional cultural activities near the proposed project. We encourage the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's cultural representative to contact us if the Tribe has information that might be useful in the assessment~ or if the Tribe has comments or concerns regarding the proj ect area, We also understand that traditional cultural use areas are private, but would welcome the opportunity to work with the Tribe regarding incorporation of this type of information in a secure and respectful manner, Please contact us at 1-888-631-6131 or at Iforsman.laas@attgloba1.net at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss the matter further, Otherwise, Leonard Forsman from LAAS will contact the Tribe's cultural representative within a week. Sincerely, ~8. ~cr..- Lynn L. Larson Principal Investigator KR/LLL cc: Donna Hogerhuis, Cultural Specialist, Mucldeshoot Indian Tribe r u~um.:. , I : ~.,,.."..\ ..... " ,c, ," ...' , -..-. .< "~ .. ~ . -, , . .. '. ' LJ ..." .---- ' i '. . . . I "---'--- , ...-..'" 1,__ . .. . .."--.. t\ ... 0 0.25 0.5 ; I I I Kersey III Project Area ! N Mile Base Map from U.S.G,S. Auburn (194g) and Sumner (1956) Quadrangles. Washington Figure 1, Proposed Kersey III Project location, ApPENDIX 3 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE UJ,l;:/Ul l~.Uf t~~ ~~~ ~IJ VV~~ .:~... ~ ......v.................... - - 5~~ ~ MUCKLESHOOTCULT~PROGRAM 3901 ~ 172nd Avenue s,e, · Auburn. Washington 98092.9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 · FAX.: (253) 833-61 T! .' October 17, 2000 (; ~~ " . - ...: \ Paul Krauss , ....: ~ .. ~ Planning Department - r; --:: City of Atlburn ,. ~ ~; ~ ~ ' ... ..... 25 West Main . -, . ,< ,.. -.....: Auburn, W A 98001 '~ /. ' I ':, .""). x~/ '" . ~':' 'i Dear Mr. Krauss, RE: SEPOO-0040 Subdivision SW Auburn Thank you for sending project proposals within the City limitS ror review by our department. I would like to comment on the SEPQo.0040 project. ~ The project proposal is converting 167,64 acres of undeveloped foresred parcels into 403 single-family (otS, The City of Auburn is requiring a as due to a likelihood of significant impact on the environment. The Tribes requesting a CuItutal eomponent added to the list ofareas fo.r discussion in the EIS. - The Muckleshoot Tribe traditionally lived along both rhe White and Green Rivers, from the Cascade Mountains as far as Lake Washington and Elliot Bay. There is high potential for archaeological discovery of graves, an encampment or village near the project area.. The Tribe is making this request due to the proximity of the Stuek, and White Rivers with known village sites, the methods of t:rad.itionaJ burials, the proximity oftbe Mucldeshoot Reservation and a registered state archaeological sire at Game Farm Park. There was mention offillini wetlands, which would inlpty the Army Corp of Engineers, a federal agency, would be involved. As you may know, if there is a federal agency involved or a federal funding component, the agency is requited to follow the Section 106 process ofrne National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A), that involves govemment.co-go...emment contact with the T nOes affected by this project, The Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program are separate dep3.l"!Ulents under the Mucldeshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments fot their input on your project. Notice or eonsultation with this department should not be presumed to represent Tribal policy or as sufficient notice Of consultation regarding other departments, ffyou have any questions. please feel free to contaet me at 253.939-~3l1, e:u. 159. I look fotward to working with your department, Sincerely. ~~a ,7 Donna Hogerhuis, CUltu~ cc: Melissa Calvert, Wildlife and CulturaJ Resource Programs Coordinator Dennis Anderson. Council Member and Cultutal Resou.rce Committee Chair 15,Oi F,~ 25J ~iJ 0599 APEl E~GI~tERI\G 14I 007 OJ 12 01 , STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, L.acey . PO Box 48343 . Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 ' (360) 407.07S2 Fax Number (360) 407-6217 ,.~ : ~ , /" ' . . " . October 16. 2000 1'.'-1 .. .' yv. " -" ...... Mr, Paul Krauss ~ t\1"'~ . . t..... ,: ~_ "..J Planning. Department .\ :~ ~ 'i 4J <:. : City of Auburn . . ... 2S West Main " ..~\ ~ , . " Aubum, Washin$ton 98001 " Log No.: lO1600-10-KI ~- I ':l Re: SEPOO-0040 Subdivisiou - Dear Nfr, Krauss; - We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the above referenced p~ject. A search of our records indicates the area has not been surveyed and has the potential for unrecorded archaeological resources. We recommend you conduct a professional archaeological survey of the ideutified project impact areas. We also recommend consultation with the concemed o:ioe regarding cultural resource issues, These comments are based on the infonnanon available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preserva.tion Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may . be revised. Thank you. for the oppommity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (360) 407~ 0771 if you have further quesriOlJ.$. I Sincerely, ~ Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist Email: rob\J{@cted.wa,gov cc: W. Pacheco ApPENDIX 4 WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM (45KI549) WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM County: King Site Number: 45KI549 Date: 10/21/02 Compiler: Kurt Roedel Location Information Restrictions: Yes X No - Unknown - SITE DESIGNATION Site Name: Williams Farmstead Site Field or other Designation: NIA Computer Number: NI A SITE LOCATION UTM: Zone: Easting: 560280 Northing: 5234543 Legal Description: T 21N R 5E Section NE1/4 ofNW1/4 ofSW1/4, Section 32 Latitude: Longitude: Elevation (ft/m): 280-310 feet (85-94 meters) USGS Map: Quad Name: Auburn, Washington Series: 7,5 Minute Date: 1994 Drainage: Major: White River Minor: Ephemeral Unnamed Stream River Mile: Aspect: Open Slope: 160 Location Description (General to Specific): The Williams Farmstead Site is on a north-sloping bluff on the west end of the Enumclaw Plateau, approximately 175 feet above the White River floodplain (Figure 1), The site is 3,2 miles southeast of downtown Auburn, 0.8 miles due south of the contemporary White River, and approximately 0.3 miles due south of Kersey Way, A dirt road, 49th Street Southeast, extends through the Williams Farmstead Site, Approach (To Relocate): From Seattle, take 1-5 south to Exit 142A (Highway 18) towards AuburnlNorth Bend. Continue east on Highway 18 to the off-ramp for the Highway 164 Exit towards AuburnlEnumc1aw, Turn southeast onto Auburn Way South/Highway 164, Continue southeast on Auburn Way South to Howard Road (follow the Game Farm Park signs). Turn south onto R Street Southeast. Continue south on R Street Southeast until it becomes Kersey Way. Continue south on Kersey Way and turn west on 49th Street Southeast. Stay to the right and continue west on 49th Street Southeast, a dirt road, for approximately 1,200 feet. The Williams Farmstead Site includes the remains of a house foundation and apple trees, plum trees, and a low density artifact scatter, The dirt road extends through the site boundary, SITE DESCRIPTION Narrative Description: The Williams Farmstead Site is a historic period site that consists ofthe base of one wall of a poured aggregate house foundation, apple and plum trees. and a low density historic scatter, on a grassy, north-sloping bluff. above the White River floodplain, Assessor's records and photographs indicated that the farmstead included a farm house, a hay barn, and a chicken coop. Archaeologists identified historic artifacts in five of 10 screened shovel probes, at W ASIDNGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Page 2 Site Number: 45KI549 depths between 10 and 40 centimeters below ground surface (Figure 2), Soils consisted of a 10 centimeter-thick root mat above glacial till, a yellowish-brown (10 YR 5/4) fine sand, with round pebbles and cobbles, Site Type: Historic farmstead Dimensions: Method of Horizontal Measurement: Pacing Length: 262 feet (80 meters) Direction: west-east Width: 288 feet (88 meters) Direction: north-south Depth: Variable, 10-40 centimeters below ground surface Method of Vertical Measurement: Tape Vegetation: On-Site: Mainly tall grasses, immature alder (Alnus sp,), willow (Salix sp,), apple and plum trees, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and swordfern (Polystichum munitum) Local: Variable Regional: Western hemlock-Douglas fir Landform: On-Site: Sloping bluff Local: Sloping bluff Water Resource: Type: Unnamed stream Distance: 250 feet (76 meters) Permanence: Ephemeral CULTURAL MATERIALS AND FEATURES Narrative Description: The Williams Farmstead Site consists of the remains of the base of one wall of a poured aggregate foundation, approximately 70 feet (21 meters) long, between six and 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters) wide, and approximately 50 feet (15 meters) east of a dirt road, 49th Street Southeast, that extends through the site boundary (Figure 2), The aggregate foundation was oriented to the northwest and southeast. Artifacts adjacent to the foundation included orange brick fragments, clear bottle, window, and chimney glass fragments, a large iron bolt, and an unidentifiable metal object. An eight-foot long railroad tie and a large flat section of poured aggregate, possibly a sidewalk, were adjacent to the west side of the foundation wall. An angled corner stone was at the northwest end of the foundation wall and was the northwest corner of the house foundation. Four apple trees, several plum trees, and a willow tree are associated with the Williams Farmstead Site, The archaeologist was unable to identify the foundation remains of the hay barn or the chicken coop, however, a historic artifact scatter was in the approximate location of the hay barn and chicken coop, according to historic maps (Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961; United States Geological Survey 1949), Additional historic artifacts identified in shovel probes included a white porcelain fragment, three wire nails, white painted wood, and 49 clear bottle and window glass fragments, Modern debris identified in shovel probes was above historic artifacts and included blue, gray, and red plastic fragments, and aluminum foil. Modem debris identified on the ground surface included a clear mason jar, a plastic plant pot, mini-blinds, a plastic baby toy, a Budweiser beer can, and a plastic Gatorade bottle. WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Page 3 Site Number: 45KI549 SITE AGE Components: Historic Dates: Post -1924 SITE HISTORY The Williams Farmstead Site was a historic period farmstead that consisted of a farm house and a hay barn built in 1924 and a chicken coop built prior to 1939 (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002). An Anderson Map Company (1907) map indicated W.F. Heckel owned the property in 1907. Daniel Williams, the land owner in 1926 (Kroll Map Company 1926), probably built the house and the hay barn, The land was owned by Fred Kammeyer by 1936 (Metsker 1936) and the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation by 1940 (Kroll Map Company 1940), The Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation most likely purchased the property from Fred Kammeyer during the Depression, A land assessment in 1939 indicated that Paul Nickelson owned the property, which included a farm house, a hay barn, and a chicken coop (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002), A date is not available for the construction of the chicken coop. The property was last assessed in 1973 (Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002) and the structures were razed prior to 1994 (United States Geological Survey 1994), SITE RECORDER Observed By: Kurt Roedel and Lisa Kelley Address: Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS) 7700 Pioneer Way, Suite 101 Gig Harbor, Washinton 98335-1164 Recorded By: Kurt Roedel Affiliation: Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited Date Recorded: October 17,2002 SITE OWNERSHIP Owner: City of Auburn Address: 25 West Main Auburn, Washington 98001 USGS MAP Quad Name: Auburn, Washington Series: 7.5 Minute Date: 1994 Section: 32 WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Page 4 Site Number: 45KI549 SKETCH MAP A sketch map of the site and vicinity is attached as Figure 2. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson Map Company 1907 Atlas of King County, Washington. Anderson Map Company, Seattle, City of Auburn 2002 Kersey III ElS Project Area Topographic Map, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. City of Auburn, Auburn, Washington, Kroll Map Company 1926 Kroll's Atlas of King County, Kroll Map Company, Seattle. 1940 Kroll's Atlas of King County, Kroll Map Company, Seattle, Metsker, Charles 1926 Metsker's Atlas of King County, Metsker Map Company, Seattle, Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated 1961 Aerial Photo of King and Pierce County, Photo No, A-95-17-4, flown 7 August. On file at Maps Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Puget Sound Regional Archives 2002 Parcel Datafor Parcel No. 322105-9010, City of Auburn, Puget Sound Regional Archives, Bellevue, United States Geological Survey 1949 Auburn Quadrangle, Washington, 7,5 Minute Series (Topographic), United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1994 Auburn Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, 1973 Sumner Quadrangle, Washington, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, r 0 0.25 0,5 I I I Mile N Base Map from U.S.G.S. Auburn (1994) and Sumner (1973) Quadrangles, Washington FigureT' Location of the Williams Farmstead Site. N 0 0 N E ::] .0 ~ - 0 (,) E ,g CO :::?: ~ 0) ~ ~ 0) 0) I- 0) ~ ~ ,=1- .Q E ~ ~ ::l 0. _ 0. 0..<( *~+ ~ l/l ....... .0 0) "0 e .0 OJ a. e ~ Q)~t > 0) .- o > Cl .r=o- (f).r=tl "0 (f) OJ 0> O)"OO)c c .r='- - ~ . o. . I . I I g- El .s ..... Cf) .s ..... rF.l "0 d 4) ...... Cf) ~ Cf) ~ '.... - 0 - - ~ <II Z - N ~ ..... ~ ApPENDIX 5 WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY COVER SHEET Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet Author: Kurt W. Roedel. Leonard A. Forsman, Dennis E. Lewarch, and Lynn L. Larson Title: Kersey III EIS Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment. City of Auburn, King County. Washington, Date: November 8, 2002 County: King Sections: 32 Township: 21N Range: 3E Quad: Auburn, Washington Total Pages: 58 Acres: 167.64 Site No.: (For Author's review) This report: _X_ Describes the objectives & methods. _X_ Summarize the results of the survey, _X_ Reports where the survey records and data are stored. _X_ Has a Research Design that: Details survey objectives Details specific methods Details expected results Details area surveyed Details how results will be feedback in the planning process OAHP Use Only NADB Document No: OAHP Log No: My review results in the opinion this survey report _does _does not conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification. Signed: Date: