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: