CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY COVER SHEET

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY COVER SHEET

Authors: Garth L. Baldwin and Jennifer Chambers Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Revised Duportail Street Bridge, Richland, Benton County, Washington.

Date of Report: March 23, 2017 County: Benton Section: 15, 16 Township: T9N Range: 28E

Quad: Richland, WA (1992) Acres: ~71 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: 45BN1981 45BN1982

Submission of PDFs is required.

Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.

Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened.

Additional Cultural Resource Assessment Work for the Updated Duportail

Street Bridge APE, Richland, Benton County, Washington

Prepared By: Garth L. Baldwin, M.A., RPA Jennifer Chambers, M.S., RPA Prepared For:

Widener & Associates 10108 32nd Avenue West, Suite D Everett, Washington 98204 Drayton Archaeology Report: 0916D

ARPA Permit No. DACW68-9-17-01

March 23, 2017

DRAYTON ARCHAEOLOGY

PO Box 782 - Blaine, WA 98231-0782 - www.draytonarchaeology.com

Drayton Archaeology Report 0916D i

CONTENTS

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................... 2 Background Review ........................................................................................................................ 7

Environmental Context ............................................................................................................. 7

Topography and Geology ....................................................................................................... 7

Sediments ................................................................................................................................ 7

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 8

Cultural Context ........................................................................................................................ 8

Previous Cultural Resources Surveys and Archaeology ............................................................... 10 Cultural Resource Expectations .................................................................................................... 12

Field Investigations ....................................................................................................................... 13 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 29 References ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Shovel Probe Table ................................................................................................. 33 Appendix B: Archaeological Site & Isolate Inventory Forms ...................................................... 37 ______________________________________________________________________________

FIGURES

Figure 1. USGS (1992) Richland, WA quadrangle topographic map detailing the location of the APE. ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2. Aerial image detailing the APE as surveyed by CRC in 2009 (light blue) and the modified portions of the APE (dark blue) addressed for the Revised Duportail Street Bridge Project (map courtesy of Widener & Associates). .............................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Aerial map of the north portion of the APE showing locations of shovel probes. Image from Google Earth, adapted by DA. ..................................................................................... 20

Figure 4. Aerial map of the south portion of the APE detailing locations of excavated shovel probes. Image from Google Earth, adapted by DA. ............................................................. 21

______________________________________________________________________________

Drayton Archaeology Report 0916D ii

PHOTOS

Photo 1. Overview of the north side of the APE nearest the Yakima River, view north.............. 14

Photo 2. Detail of recreational trails and available ground surface exposure nearest the river on the northern side of the APE, view southeast. ............................................................................ 14

Photo 3. Overview of north side of the APE detailing existing buried utilities and recreational trails....................................................................................................................................... 15

Photo 4. Overview of the north side of the APE near the Yakima showing evidence of gravel mine activity, view north. .............................................................................................................. 15

Photo 5. Overview of northern extent of the northern side of the APE near SR 240, view west. 16

Photo 6. Overview of the north side of the APE near the intersection of SR 240 and Duportail Street, view northwest. .......................................................................................................... 16

Photo 7. Overview of the southern portion of the APE; view southeast. Note Columbia Canal in the background midway up the slope. ................................................................................... 17

Photo 8. Overview of south side of APE, view southwest. Note gravel piles and construction staging in the background. .................................................................................................... 18

Photo 9. Overview the south side of the APE near the water tower between Queensgate Drive and Truman Avenue, view northeast. .......................................................................................... 18

Photo 10. Overview of the segment of the Columbia Canal in the APE. ..................................... 19

Photo 11. Overview of standard SP as excavated across the APE; note amount of cobble removed................................................................................................................................................ 22

Photo 12. Overview of artifacts reburied from shovel probe MH2. ............................................. 23

Photo 13. Dorsal side of MCS or CCS flake recovered from SP MH2 (45BN1981). .................. 24

Photo 14. Ventral side of MCS or CCS flake recovered from SP MH2 (45BN1981). ................ 24

Photo 15. Flakes (top) and shell fragments (bottom) recovered from SP Radial 1 (45BN1981). 25

Photo 16. Dorsal side of flake and shell fragment recovered from SP MH3 (45BN1981). ......... 25

Photo 17. Dorsal side of flake and shell fragment recovered from SP MH3 (45BN1981). ......... 26

Photo 18. Margaritifera falcata shell collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982). .............................. 26

Photo 19. Dorsal side of Cryptocrystalline silicate collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982). ......... 27

Photo 20. Ventral side of Cryptocrystalline silicate collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982). ........ 27

______________________________________________________________________________

Drayton Archaeology Report 0916D 1

Additional Cultural Resource Assessment Work for the Updated Duportail Street Bridge

APE, Richland, Benton County, Washington

Authors: Garth L. Baldwin and Jennifer L. Chambers Date: March 23, 2017 Location: Richland, Benton County, Washington USGS Quad: Richland, WA (1992) Township, Range, Section: T9N, R28E, S15 and 16

SUMMARY

Drayton Archaeology (DA) was retained by Widener & Associates to conduct the present investigation in support of the City of Richland’s Duportail Street Bridge Project located in Richland, Benton County, Washington (the project). The project proposes to construct a bridge that will connect two existing sections of Duportail Street across the Yakima River as well as complete associated infrastructure improvements. The initial cultural resources assessment for this project consisted of 35 acres and was conducted by Cultural Resource Consultants (CRC) in 2009 (Shapley and Schumacher 2009). Since the 2009 CRC investigation, the project area has been expanded upon adding an additional 36 acres -- bringing the total acreage for this project to 71. DA was contracted to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the newly added 36 acres that were not previously investigated by CRC. This report details our findings for those particular areas. The project is subject to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) due to its inclusion of federal lands. Section 106 requires that federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed project (e.g. an undertaking) must consider the effect of the undertaking on historic properties that are or may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The present undertaking also required an Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) permit (no. DACW68-9-17-01) as the APE includes two previously recorded archaeological sites: 45BN581 and 45BN1629. 45BN581 is a small precontact lithic site and 45BN1629 is a precontact lithic site consisting on a single chert flake. DA’s cultural resources assessment for this project consisted of background review, field investigation, and the production of this report. Background review determined that the area of potential effect (APE) is located in an area of moderate probability for historic properties. Field investigation included pedestrian survey, aboveground reconnaissance, and subsurface testing. Field investigation identified two precontact archaeological sites (45BN1981 and 45BN1982) and a segment of a historic site (Columbia Canal) in the APE. Site records were filled out for both 45BN1981 and 45BN1982 and submitted to Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). DA recommends that neither 45BN1981 nor 45BN1982 be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As for the segment of the Columbia Canal included in the APE, which consists entirely of a metal trough that was installed in 1985, as part of the greater project CRC updated the inventory in 2009 and determined that the project will “not detract


from its visual or material characteristics that support NRHP eligibility, nor will compromise the 99.04 percent of the canal's length outside the project APE” (Shapley and Schumacher 2009; Schumacher 2009). DA concurs. As no historic properties were found in the APE DA therefore recommends a determination of: “No adverse effect” for the subject.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

This cultural resources assessment was conducted, in part, to satisfy regulatory requirements for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A historic property is typically aged 50 years or older and is defined in 36 CFR part 800.16(l)(1) as follows:

… any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.

The procedures under section 106 generally require the Federal agency involved in the undertaking to identify the area of potential effect (APE), inventory any historic properties that may be located within the APE, and determine if the identified historic properties located within the APE may be eligible for listing on the NRHP. An APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), as follows:

… the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.

If NRHP-eligible historic properties are identified within the APE, then potential adverse effects to the historic properties must be assessed and a resolution of adverse effects must be recommended. Under section 106, the responsible Federal agency must, at a minimum, consult with and seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), as applicable, and consult with any affected or potentially affected Native American Tribe(s).

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The APE is located in Richland, in Benton County, Washington, Sections 15 and 16, Township 9 North, Range 28 East, Willamette Meridian (Figures 1 and 2). The Duportail Bridge project spans 0.61 miles of Duportail Street from Queensgate Drive northward to just north of State Route (SR) 240. The project proposes to construct a four-lane bridge over the Yakima River connecting Duportail Street where it currently dead-ends on both sides of the river. Sidewalks would be


constructed and portions of the roadway would be widened. In addition, various utilities will be installed under the proposed roadways, adjacent to existing utilities, as well as relocating an existing sewer lift station. The lift station wet well will require excavation to an approximate depth of 27 feet. Along Duportail Street south of the Yakima River excavation will be required along the east right-of-way boundary for the construction of a noise wall. The footing excavation will be approximately 6 feet deep into native soil. A segment of the Columbia Canal (managed by the Columbia Irrigation District [CID]) will be replaced from the west end of the existing metal canal flume to approximately 50 feet east of the bridge. The existing steel framed flume will be removed and replaced with a cement concrete rectangular channel. Excavation into the existing hillside will be required. From the toe of existing slope approximately 15 feet of horizontal excavation will be required for the new flume construction, then graded to catch the existing slope. For construction of the bridge, temporary reaction piles up to 50 feet deep will be installed inside the perimeter of a temporary gravel pad within the river for construction of the drilled shafts. On the south embankment under the bridge, between the CID canal and the river, a retaining wall will be constructed in connection with the Pier 2 bridge foundation. Portions of the hillside will be removed up to a depth of 30 feet. A combination of soil anchors and rock bolts approximately 80 feet long will be installed into the hillslope to stabilize the hill. SR 240 will be widened eastward and westward to include right turn deceleration lanes. SR 240 will also be regraded approximately 500 feet either side of the Duportail intersection which will require excavation up to 3.5 feet. The final grade of the roadway will drop between 1.5-2 feet in order to eliminate grade changes to the railroad tracks. A second waterline, parallel to an existing one, will also be bored under the existing roadway and track. The only anticipated modifications along the railroad will be a new widened crossing surface, a new signal bungalow and the addition of vehicle gates. City View Drive will be reconstructed and includes installation of a water line and stormwater conveyance system up City View, adjacent to existing utilities, for approximately 900 feet. Tanglewood Drive will be extended approximately 1700 feet west of Duportail Street and 730 feet east of Duportail Street. Work will include a new 27-foot long by 27-foot wide roadway with sidewalks, water line and stormwater conveyance system. Surface grading will be required around the river boat launch on the north side of the river. Site restoration and revegetation will be required between Tanglewood Drive and the river.


Located between the Yakima River and the existing Duportail Street cul-de-sac easterly of the river is an existing graveled parking area serving a primitive river access point/boat launch. This project proposes to relocate the parking area just northwesterly of the roadway/bridge embankment limits and a new connection to the existing river access point will be constructed. This work will require minor excavation up to 6 inches in depth to remove organic material for placement of crushed surfacing material. A series of primitive nature trails also meander along the river frontage. The construction of Tanglewood Drive will require the relocation and reconstruction of the main trail between the parking area and the existing Tanglewood Drive cul-de-sac to the northwest. It’s anticipated the new trail will require a couple of inches of organic removal and placement of bark mulch or another organic material. All disturbed areas within the project limits will be hydroseeded just prior to project completion. Traffic signal systems at the Duportail Street intersections with SR 240, Tanglewood Drive, and City View Drive will require excavations for signal pole foundations (3-foot diameter and up to 20 feet in depth), junction boxes (up to 4 feet by 4 feet and 3 feet in depth), trenches for conduit (18 to 24-inch depth), and controller/service cabinets (up to 6 feet by 6 feet and 2 feet in depth). Illumination systems along Duportail Street will require excavations for luminaire pole foundations (3-foot diameter and up to 10 feet in depth), junction boxes (up to 2 feet by 2 feet and 2 feet in depth), trenches for conduit (18 to 24-inch depth), and electrical service cabinets (up to 4 feet by 4 feet and 2 feet in depth).


Figure 1. USGS (1992) Richland, WA quadrangle topographic map detailing the location of the APE.

0 400 800200Feet


BACKGROUND REVIEW

Determining the probability for historic properties to be present within the APE was based largely upon review and analysis of past environmental and cultural contexts, previous cultural resources studies and sites recorded within one-mile of the APE. Consulted sources included local geologic data; archaeological, historic and ethnographic records found on file at the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, and selected published local historic records.

Environmental Context

Topography and Geology

The APE is located within the Columbia River Plateau (or Columbia Basin) physiographic province (Lasmanis 1991:265, McKee 1972). The Columbia River Plateau is a broad basin that formed during the Miocene as flood basalts erupted from long fissures and spread out over the land (Baker et al. 1991; Hooper 1982). Hooper (1982) estimates that more than 200,000 km3 of lava flowed over the Columbia Basin between 17 and 6 million years ago. As the basalt flowed out and covered the land, the earth’s crust gradually sank and a large basin was formed. The basalts in the area have been folded into very large anticlines that strike east-west to southeast-northwest (Lasmanis 1991). Basalts are found along the ridges, running east-west both to the north and south of the study area. In some areas, the basalt is overlain with alluvial gravels deposited during the Pliocene, glacial outwash and wind-blown loess deposited during the Pleistocene, and/or Holocene alluvium (Baker et al. 1991, Lasmanis 1991). The area’s principal drainage is the Yakima River. The Yakima River is a one of the major tributaries to the Columbia River and enters the Columbia River approximately two-miles south of the APE.

Sediments

According to the United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS [n.d.]) there are three different soils in the APE: Burbank loamy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes; Finley fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; and Quincy loamy sand, 0 to 30 percent slopes. Soils from the Burbank series formed in basaltic glacial outwash or alluvium, and consist of very deep, excessively drained soils. Burbank soils can be found on terraces and terrace escarpments with slopes ranging between 0 to 60 percent. A typical pedon consists of an A horizon 0 to 5 inches; grayish brown loamy sand, a Bw horizon 5 to 16 inches; grayish brown loamy fine sand, a Bk1 horizon 16 to 30 inches; light brownish gray very gravelly loamy sand, a Bk2 horizon 30 to 35 inches; light brownish gray extremely gravelly loamy sand, and a Bk3 horizon 35 to 60 inches; dark gray extremely gravelly sand.


Soils from the Finley series consist of very deep, well drained soils formed in gravelly alluvium with a mixture of loess in the surface. Finley soils can be found on alluvial fans and outwash terraces. Slopes are 0 to 50 percent. A typical pedon consists of A--0 to 3 inches; grayish brown very fine sandy loam, AB--3 to 13 inches; grayish brown fine sandy loam, Bw--13 to 22 inches; light brownish gray extremely gravelly loam, Bk--22 to 28 inches; light brownish gray extremely gravelly loam, and 2C--28 to 60 inches; multicolored, extremely gravelly sand. Soils from the Quincy series, consist of very deep, excessively drained soils formed in sands on dunes and terraces with slopes of 0 to 65 percent. A typical pedon consists of A--0 to 15 inches; grayish brown fine sand, and C--15 to 60 inches; grayish brown fine sand (UCDavis SoilWeb n.d., USDA-NRCS n.d.). Several gravel pits have been mapped throughout the area as well.

Vegetation

Prior to historic settlement, the vegetation in the area would have been typical of the Artemisia tridentate/Agropyron zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973:44). This shrub-steppe zone is characterized by bunchgrasses and sagebrushes, vegetation typical of the upland desert environment in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains. The region is arid to semiarid with warm summers, very cold winters, and limited precipitation.

Cultural Context

Precontact occupation of the Columbia Basin has been well summarized in regional literature over the past several decades (e.g. Ames et al. 1998; Browman and Munsel 1960; Daugherty 1962; Dumond and Minor 1983). In general, these overviews of human history have identified sequences of cultural development that are typically organized into five general phases: Paleoindian/Windust, Vantage/Cascade, Tucannon, Harder, and Numipu/Piquinin (Leonhardy and Rice 1970). The general trend of human adaptation on the Columbia Basin for these development phases suggests a change through time from an upland hunting strategy to a semi-sedentary riverine-based subsistence. The APE is located in the traditional territory of the Middle Columbia Salish, Yakama, Umatilla, Wanapum, Palus, and Cayuse (Ruby and Brown 1986:115-116, 208; Spier 1936; Ray et al 1938). Generally, larger villages were established along the river during the colder seasons, while short term sites were utilized during the warmer seasons following seasonal-available resources. Review of ethnographic information did not identify any previously recorded villages or placenames in the immediate APE. The nearest previously recorded ethnographic village was called Tana’xalu (meaning “throws rocks at fish”) and was located along the Yakima River at the present-day location of Richland (Ray 1936). The first recorded presence of non-natives in the area is attributed to the Lewis and Clark expedition when, in 1805, they traveled along the Columbia River between Richland and West Richland. The first trading post was established on the Columbia River in 1807. In 1811, David


Thompson of the North West Company (NWC) traveled through the area during an expedition aimed at developing the fur trade in the interior Northwest. By 1818, several outposts were established along the Columbia by the NWC and, later, the Hudson Bay Company (HBC). In 1836, missionaries arrived in the area in an attempt to convert and assimilate local tribal groups. Marcus Whitman and his family started a mission near the present town of Walla Walla, approximately 60 miles east of the APE. In 1849, following a devastating measles outbreak, the Whitman family and several others were killed by the Cayuse and Umatilla Indians (Thompson 1964). A few years later, the "Whitman Massacre" became the impetus behind the “Cayuse War” which eventually resulted in the establishment of the 1855 Treaty forcing local tribal groups to one of several reservations including the Yakama, Umatilla, and Colville Reservations. In 1862, the United States government passed the Homestead Act, which granted 160 acres to individual U.S. citizens, as an effort to encourage non-native settlement following the Indian War of 1855 – 1856. The area was first surveyed by the federal government in August of 1864. Based on these early maps, the APE had not yet been settled. On the 1856 GLO map, trails were marked along the north and south bank of the Yakima River. The trail on the north side of the river appears to follow the general alignment of SR 240 and the railroad. No additional cultural features were noted in the APE. Miners were some of the first to settle the area in search of gold. The developing mining industry created a demand for cattle and in turn created a local industry for livestock. The livestock industry eventually developed into an industry for agriculture. As livestock and agricultural pursuits succeeded locally, it soon became evident that adequate and dependable irrigation was necessary. As a result, numerous irrigation districts were constructed throughout the valley to provide more accessible and reliable irrigation to local farms and fields. In 1891 construction for the gravity-fed Columbia Canal (also known as the Kennewick Canal) was initiated with water delivered by 1903. The canal length was eventually increased to 31 miles (Boreson 1993b). An aqueduct or flume formerly crossed the Yakima River approximately along the route of the current project, but this was apparently abandoned and dismantled decades ago (Shapley and Schumacher 2009). Richland, initially known as Benton, was incorporated in 1910. Agriculture and stock raising required management of water resources and in 1934, a series of hydroelectric dams and locks were constructed along the Columbia River to satisfy demand for water and power. Once the dams were in place the area became a major river transportation hub. Farming was the primary industry. In 1943, following the entry of the United States in World War II, Hanford Atomic Reservation was established. A rail line built by the US Government connected Hanford Works with the Northern Pacific Railway to the south and a branch line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. The line ran from Beverly to the south bank of the Columbia River just west of Vernita. The line originally traversed through Richland parallel to Wright Avenue, approximately


2000 feet east of APE. After 1948, the tracks were moved to their present location on the western shoulder of SR 240. Reviewed historic topographic maps indicate that gravel mining occurred over much of the APE along the Yakima River as early as 1951 (USGS 1951, 1978). Currently the area is located in an area of encroaching development consisting primarily of single- and multi-family residential, public utilities, transportation and recreation.

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

According to files made available on DAHP’s WISAARD, numerous cultural resources surveys have been previously conducted in and within a one-mile radius of the APE. Of these, the nearest and most relevant included four surveys that were conducted within the boundaries of the subject APE. In 1999, Hartmann and Holstine (1999) conducted a study of SR 240 that included the entire portion included in the subject APE. The project proposed to upgrade and widen SR 240 in Richland by adding new north- and south-bound lanes. The survey consisted of background review; no cultural resources were found as previously recorded in the project area. Field investigation consisted of pedestrian survey; subsurface testing was considered unnecessary due to sufficient ground surface exposures. No cultural resources were identified in the project area and additional investigations were deemed unnecessary. In 1999, another study was conducted by the Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Dickson 1999). The project aimed to identify and record all cultural resources sites present along the McNary Reservoir. The project area included much of the Yakima River shoreline as well as that included in the subject APE. Results of the study identified one site, 45BN581, in the subject APE. 45BN581 is precontact lithic site consisting of two precontact obsidian secondary flakes and a basalt cobble core; also noted within the site boundaries was an approximately three-meters across concrete footing (Steinmetz 1998). According to files attached to the 45BN581site form, the site was monitored in April 2013 by the Yakama Nation. At that time it was noted that artifacts were not encountered however surface looting was observed. It was recommended that “no impacts to the isolate” were expected from pedestrian traffic or the bridge proposed for construction in the area over the next two years. In 2006, survey was conducted prior to the development of a proposed Washington State Fish and Wildlife primitive boat launch that was also to include, foot trails, and vehicle parking (Gough and Crisson 2006). The survey area included much of current northern side of the APE between the Yakima River and Tanglewood Drive. Field investigation consisted of pedestrian survey. No new cultural resources were identified. Additionally, no evidence of the abandoned cross-river aqueduct was observed (Gough and Crisson 2006).


In 2009, CRC conducted a study that included 35 acres of the original APE for the subject project. Field investigation for CRC’s 2009 study consisted of “pedestrian survey, examination of available soil exposures, and excavation of shovel probes” (Shapley and Schumacher 2009). CRC excavated 14 shovel probes that were generally placed “along the low terrace within the proposed road ROW between Tanglewood Drive and the Yakima River” (Shapley and Schumacher 2009:7). CRC’s investigation resulted in the identification of 45BN1629, a single lithic flake, from within the upper 15 cm (about 6 inches) of soil deposits (Schumacher 2009). 45BN1629 was recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Shapley and Schumacher 2009:9). 45BN581 was not relocated (Shapley and Schumacher 2009). CRC’s 2009 investigation also determined that the metal canal trough located in the APE was associated with the Columbia Canal. The Columbia Canal, originally called the Kennewick Canal, is an irrigation canal that was constructed in 1890 – 1892. The original configuration of the canal was 31 miles long and extended between Horn Rapids and conveyed water in a southeasterly direction ending nearly Finley, WA (Smith 1891, as cited in Boreson 1993a). The Columbia Canal, as described by Boreson (1993b):

When the canal was constructed in 1890-1892, stacked rock was used for riprap and clay imported from Montana was plastered on the canal walls to stop leak (Mainwaring 1993). In Kennewick, in 1902, the canal was five feet deep, eighteen feet wide at the bottom, and had the capacity to irrigate about 15,000 acres (Boening 1919:23). The modern canal, as depicted on the USGS Quadrangles, is 25 miles long, plus three laterals, which diverge from the main stem in Kennewick. Lateral No. 1 is about 4 miles long and terminates a few miles southeast of Kennewick. Lateral No. 2 is about 8 miles long and ends at the Columbia River. Lateral No.3 is about 13 miles long and also ends at the Columbia River.

The Columbia Canal was originally recorded by Soderberg in 1984; however little information beyond the inventory was recorded at that time (Soderberg 1984). Boreson (1993a, 1993b) updated the inventory in 1993 leading to its nomination to the NRHP. The Columbia Canal was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under criterion A, as “…the canal was part of an irrigation system that made a significant contribution to the economic importance of agriculture in the area, and functioned in this capacity from 1892 to the present (Boreson 1993b). Boreson (1993a) inspected two sections of the Columbia Canal; however these sections are not included in the subject APE. In 2009, CRC inspected and described the section of the Columbia Canal included in the subject APE. From Shapley and Schumacher (2009):


The [Columbia Canal] is located about midway on the [south side of the] slope… from approximately the midpoint of the project APE westward along the canal. [Here,]… a modern metal trough had been installed to link t[w]o unconnected ditch segments. A concrete footing for this trough had a date of December 23, 1985 ("12/23/85") incised in regular block numerals into its top; presumably this is the date of its installation. Possibly this was installed to replace an older, failed structure that could have been part of the old flume segment across the Yakima River here.

CRC’s 2009 study also evaluated the segment of the Columbia Canal located in the APE for potential listing on the NRHP. From Shapley and Schumacher (2009:9):

The segment of the Columbia Canal within the project APE consists of about 50 percent original construction and 50 percent metal replacement trough that dates to 1982 [sic]. The bridge deck itself is proposed to be built over the canal and its structural supports will not materially impact the canal; however, the Columbia Irrigation District recommended that the canal should be lined with concrete 50 feet upstream to 50 feet downstream of the bridge pier adjacent to the canal, in order to add structural support to the system (J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 2002). The existing concrete canal segment within the APE will only be strengthened by this proposed measure, which will not detract from its visual or material characteristics that support NRHP eligibility, nor will compromise the 99.04 percent of the canal's length outside the project APE. DAHP advised that no adverse effect to this canal appeared likely due to the proposed improvement (personal communication with Russell Holter, DAHP, May 26 2009). (Shapley and Schumacher 2009: 9-10).

CULTURAL RESOURCE EXPECTATIONS

Based on review of the project scope and background review the APE was considered to be located in an area to have a moderate probability for both precontact and historic archaeology. Types of cultural resources that may be present in the APE might include remnants of precontact activities related to lithic resource acquisition and testing (cobble tool scatters), fire modified rock (suggestive of processing/camping activities), temporary camps or resource processing locations that could represent a range of ephemeral hunting, gathering and/or ceremonial activities. Historic cultural resources that could be present in the APE could include trash scatters or artifacts associated with logging, farming or residential settlement. Nonetheless, considering the depositional environment and extent of previous development in the APE, potential cultural resource deposits are expected to be encountered within a disturbed context.


FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Field investigations were conducted on November 9-10, 2016 by DA Principal Investigator Garth Baldwin and archaeologists Oliver Patsch, Marsha Hanson, and Sebastian de Bont. Aside from morning fog, both days cleared to be mostly sunny and warm. Field investigation included pedestrian survey, aboveground reconnaissance, and subsurface testing. Pedestrian survey consisted of walking meandering transects across the APE and inspecting the general area for evidence of archaeological materials on the ground surface and/or topographical features that may indicated the presence of buried archaeological deposits. Aboveground reconnaissance was generally conducted during pedestrian survey and consisted of examining the APE for aboveground resources, such as buildings and/or structures that might be present. Subsurface investigation consisted of excavating shovel probes (SP/SPs) to identify subsurface soil conditions and to determine the presence/absence of buried cultural materials and/or deposits. SPs were placed judgmentally based on the project scope and available landforms/boundary markers. SPs were not excavated in areas that were obviously disturbed or where soils were obscured by pavement and/or contemporary buildings and structures. SPs measured approximately 40 to 50 centimeters (cm) in diameter and were excavated to a depth that represented proposed project construction in that location, within reason. Excavated sediments were screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware and upon completion of excavation each SP was backfilled. Global Positioning System (GPS) points were collected for all probe locations and representative photographs were taken. A log of sediment descriptions and contents are provided in Appendix A. The characteristics of the APE on either side of the Yakima River differ greatly. North of the river, the topography of the APE is generally level (Photo 1). Nearest the river the APE is largely undeveloped excluding crisscrossing recreational trails (Photos 2 – 4). The trails were primarily barren and provided excellent ground surface exposure. Between Tanglewood Drive and SR 240 the APE has been largely developed with multi- and single family residential buildings and vehicular roadways (Photos 5 – 6).


Photo 1. Overview of the north side of the APE nearest the Yakima River, view north.

Photo 2. Detail of recreational trails and available ground surface exposure nearest the river on the

northern side of the APE, view southeast.


Photo 3. Overview of north side of the APE detailing existing buried utilities and recreational trails.

Photo 4. Overview of the north side of the APE near the Yakima showing evidence of gravel mine

activity, view north.


Photo 5. Overview of northern extent of the northern side of the APE near SR 240, view west.

Photo 6. Overview of the north side of the APE near the intersection of SR 240 and Duportail Street,

view northwest.


South of the river, the topography of the APE slopes steeply upward from the river to a high terrace (Photo 7). Existing land use on this side of the APE is largely commercial and recreational; between the river and City View Drive there were extensive areas of ground surface exposure as a result of recent gravel mining (Photo 8). Other impacts to the area include disturbance from Columbia Canal, buried and overhead utilities, access roads, staging areas. There were also extensive heavy machinery tracks across the area, which provided representative ground surface exposures. Between City View Drive and Queensgate Drive, the area is largely developed for multi-family residential and to a lesser extent single-family residential as well as some public facilities (Photo 9).

Photo 7. Overview of the southern portion of the APE; view southeast. Note Columbia Canal in the

background midway up the slope.


Photo 8. Overview of south side of APE, view southwest. Note gravel piles and construction staging

in the background.

Photo 9. Overview the south side of the APE near the water tower between Queensgate Drive and

Truman Avenue, view northeast.


One cultural resource was identified during pedestrian survey of the APE. The Columbia Canal is recorded as located about mid-way on the slope on the south side of the river. The canal, in the segment of the APE included for this part of the project, consists of a metal trough that was installed in 1985 (Photo 10). The trough was recorded as part of CRC’s 2009 study and included an update to the NRHP inventory form.

Photo 10. Overview of the segment of the Columbia Canal in the APE.

Across the APE, 34 SPs were excavated. SPs were placed primarily along the northern side of the river where the flatter topography was thought to be more attractive to occupation (Figure 3). SPs south of the river were excavated in areas of the APE that were not on steep slopes, currently obscured by pavement/asphalt/gravel road or other obvious areas of disturbance (Figure 4).

20 D

rayton Archaeology R

eport 0916D

Figure 3. Aerial map of the north portion of the APE showing locations of shovel probes. Image from Google Earth, adapted by DA.


Figure 4. Aerial map of the south portion of the APE detailing locations of excavated shovel probes.

Image from Google Earth, adapted by DA.


Sediments encountered during SP testing were fairly consistent across the APE (aside from variations in the amount of pebbles and cobbles encountered) and basically conformed to the descriptions mapped for the area by USDA-NRCS (n.d.). Some form of sand or sandy loam was encountered within all of the SPs. Large cobbles / small boulders were frequently encountered in the less disturbed areas along the river corridor and sometimes represented over half of the excavated matrix (Photo 11). A small percentage of these cobbles were fractured but no cultural influence could be attributed to them. Detailed sediment descriptions for each excavated SP are documented in Appendix A.

Photo 11. Overview of standard SP as excavated across the APE; note amount of cobble removed.

On December 29, 2016 all artifacts were returned to the APE. The weather that day was clear and cool and ground visibility was considered excellent. SPs were relocated by cross-referencing with the field data; SPs were easily viewable from the ground surface. All artifacts were reburied at and/or near the depths in that they were recovered and photographs were taken of each re-opened SP (Photo 12). Upon return of the artifacts they were refilled.


Photo 12. Overview of artifacts reburied from shovel probe MH2.

Cultural materials were encountered in SPs: MH1, MH2, R1, MH3 and MH5. MH1 contained 11 non-descript brown colorless glass fragments within the upper 30 cmbs. As such, deposits from SP MH1 were considered disturbed. SP MH2 contained a small flake fragment of a gray and brown mottled micro- or cryptocrystalline silicate (MCS or CCS respectively; Photos 13 and 14). To further investigate SP MH2, additional SPs were excavated. In SP R1 two CCS flakes, two fragments of freshwater shell (Margaritifera falcate) and seven fragments of a modern era brown bottle glass, likely from a Northwestern Glass Company bottle (as indicated by a portion of a Maker’s Mark located on one fragment) were encountered (Photo 15). The glass fragments were identified stratigraphically above precontact materials and as such the deposits below the glass were considered intact. MH3, located approximately 30 meters to the northwest contained a flake of basalt and another fragment of freshwater shell (Photos 16 and 17). A radial probe (R3) at SP MH3 failed to produce any additional information. SP MH5 contained a piece of CCS shatter and approximately 30 fragments of freshwater shell (Photos 18 - 20).


Photo 13. Dorsal side of MCS or CCS flake recovered from SP MH2 (45BN1981).

Photo 14. Ventral side of MCS or CCS flake recovered from SP MH2 (45BN1981).


Photo 15. Flakes (top) and shell fragments (bottom) recovered from SP Radial 1 (45BN1981).

Photo 16. Dorsal side of flake and shell fragment recovered from SP MH3 (45BN1981).


Photo 17. Dorsal side of flake and shell fragment recovered from SP MH3 (45BN1981).

Photo 18. Margaritifera falcata shell collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982).


Photo 19. Dorsal side of Cryptocrystalline silicate collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982).

Photo 20. Ventral side of Cryptocrystalline silicate collected from SP MH5 (45BN1982).


Archaeological site inventory forms were prepared for the identified cultural material. Considering there was nearly 200 meters between SP MH2, SP R1 and SP MH3 to SP MH5 and no surface artifacts in between, the artifacts found at SP MH2, SP R1 and SP MH3 were recorded as one site (45BN1981) and the findings at SP MH5 were recorded as a separate site (45BN1982). Site forms for 45BN1981 and 45BN1982 were prepared and submitted to the DAHP; a copy of each is available in Appendix B.

RESULTS

Background review identified two precontact sites (45BN581 and 45BN1629) and one historic property (Columbia Canal) as being previously recorded in the APE. Results of DA’s investigation did not relocate evidence of 45BN581 or 45BN1629. Site 45BN1629 was previously evaluated for listing on the NRHP during CRC’s 2009 study and it was recommended the site be considered not eligible (Shapley and Schumacher 2009). Shapely and Schumacher (2009) also inspected the segment of the Columbia Canal in the APE and determined that the metal trough was built in 1985 and therefore the project will “not detract from its visual or material characteristics that support NRHP eligibility, nor will compromise the 99.04 percent of the canal's length outside the project APE”. Additionally, no evidence of the trails noted in the 1865 GLO were observed in the APE. DA’s field investigation identified two precontact archaeological sites (45BN1981 and 45BN1982) as present in the APE. In accordance with Section 106, all cultural resources that were identified in the APE were evaluated for potential listing on the NRHP. Evaluation criteria for listing on the NRHP were based on the National Register Criteria for Evaluation as summarized in 36 CFR 60.4. The precontact lithic scatter recorded as 45BN1981 was identified through the recovered of flakes from three SPs (MH2, R1 and MH3). The observed artifacts consist of three cryptocrystalline flakes, one fine-grained volcanic rock flake (possibly basalt) and three Margaritifera falcate (fresh water mussel shell) fragments. Due to proximity the site may be associated with 45BN581, however this was not confirmed and 45BN581 was not relocated during the present inventory. Considering 45BB1981 consists of only a few lithics that were encountered in a small isolated area that is surrounded by areas of extensive previous disturbance, 45BN1981 does not appear to have the potential to reveal additional data and is therefore not recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 45BN1982 consists of a single piece of cryptocrystalline silicate shatter and approximately 30 fragments of Margaritifera falcate (fresh water mussel). Additional subsurface testing did not identify further buried artifacts and as such the site appears to be limited to a single artifact. The site is located in a highly disturbed area as a result of quarrying activities that have occurred as early as 1951. As it does not appear that the site possesses additional data, it is not recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Two heretofore unrecorded scatters of precontact and historic materials were recorded as a result of the present work: 45BN1981 and 45BN1982. Neither can be recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. Based on the present investigation and the previous work within a portion of the APE, DA recommends the lead federal agency(ies) assert a determination of “No Adverse Effect” for the preset undertaking. Although this project is being conducted in accordance with section 106 regulations, guidance for the treatment of archaeological resources can be gleaned from state law. Washington State law and regulations provide for the protection of all archaeological resources in the state. Washington State Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, prohibits unauthorized removal, theft, and/or destruction of archaeological resources and sites. This statute also provides for prosecution and financial penalties covering consultation and the recovery of archaeological resources. Washington State RCW Chapter 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, states that the willful removal, mutilation, defacing, and/or destruction of Indian burials constitutes a Class C felony. In the event that ground disturbing or other construction activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, work should stop immediately. At that time the appropriate persons to be notified should be informed of the exact nature and extent of the resource so that measures can be taken to secure the resources. In the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains, work must stop immediately, the remains should be covered and secured against further disturbance, and communication established with the local police department, the Corps (et.al), and all concerned/consulted tribes.


REFERENCES

Ames K. M., D. E. Dumond, J. R. Galm, and R. Minor 1998 Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In Plateau, Handbook of North American

Indians, Volume 12, pp. 103-119, edited by W. C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. et al. 1998

Baker, Victor R., Bruce N. Bjornstad, Alan J. Busaca, Karl R. Fecht, E.P. Kiver, Ula L. Moody, James G. Rigby, D.F. Stradling, and Ann M. Tallman

1991 Quaternary Geology of the Columbia Plateau. In Quaternary Nonglacial Geology, Conterminous U.S., edited by R. B. Morrison, pp. 215-245. The Geology of North America, Vol. K-2, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Boreson, Keo

1993a A Cultural Resources Survey of the Twin Bridges Replacement Project, Benton County, Washington.

1993b National Register of Historic Places Determination of Eligibility Form for the

Columbia Canal, Benton County, Washington. Browman, David L. and David A. Munsel

1960 Columbia Plateau Prehistory: Cultural Development and Impinging Influences. American Antiquity, 34:249-264.

Daugherty, Richard D.

1962 The Intermontane Western Tradition. American Antiquity, 28(2):144-150. Dickson, Catherine D.

1999 McNary Reservoir Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Report. On File at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Dumond, Don E. and Rick Minor

1983 Archaeology in the John Day Reservoir: The Wildcat Canyon Site. University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers 30, Eugene.

Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness

1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8, Portland, Oregon.

Gough, Stan, and Fred Crisson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Proposed Duportail Yakima River Access Project. On File at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.


Hartmann, Glenn D., and Craig Holstine 1999 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington State Department of

Transportation’s SR 240: Stevens Drive to I-182 Project. On File at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Hooper, Peter R.

1982 The Columbia River Basalts. Science 215:1463-1468. Lasmanis, Raymond

1991 The Geology of Washington. Rocks and Minerals 66:262-277. Leonhardy, Frank C. and David G. Rice

1970 A Proposed Culture Typology for the Lower Snake River Region, Southeastern Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 4, No. 1, Pgs. 1-29. Editors Roderick Sprague and David E. Walker, Jr., University of Idaho, Moscow Idaho.

McKee, B.

1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

Ray, Verne F.

1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Volume 27, pp. 99-152.

Ray, Verne F., George P. Murdock, Beatrice Blyth, Orner C. Stewart, Jack Harris, E. Adamson Hoebel, and D.B. Shimkin

1938 "Tribal Distribution in Eastern Oregon and Adjacent Regions." American Anthropologist 40:384-415.

Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown

1992 [1986] A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Schumacher, James

2009 State of Washington Archaeological Isolate Inventory Form for 45BN1629. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Shapley, Jake and James Schumacher

2009 Cultural Resources Assessment for Duportail Bridge Project, Richland, Washington. On File at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.


Soderberg, Lisa 1984 Kennewick Canal (Columbia Canal) Inventory Form, Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service. On file at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

Steinmetz, Shawn

1998 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Cultural Resources Isolated Find Report for Site 45BN581. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Thompson, Erwin N.

1964 Whitman Mission National Historic Site. Handbook Series 37. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA‐NRCS)

n.d. Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed December 2016.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

1951 Richland, Washington 1:24,000 7.5-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C.

1978 Richland, Washington 1:24,000 7.5-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1992 Richland, Washington 1:24,000 7.5-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C.

University of California Davis SoilWeb Map

n.d. UC Davis California Soil Resource Lab’s SoilWeb Interactive map, displaying Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data, available at: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed October 2016.


APPENDIX A: SHOVEL PROBE TABLE

DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(CM)

SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION CONTENTS

Shovel Probe OP1

0 - 60 Undifferentiated brown sandy loam with a high percentage of large, rounded river cobbles.

No Cultural Material

Notes: Frame 7 Ollie’s Camera Shovel Probe OP2



Notes: Frame 9 Ollie’s Camera Shovel Probe OP3



Notes: No photo Shovel Probe OP4



30-46 Beach sand with approximately 40% rounded pebbles and cobbles No Cultural Material Notes: Frame 14 Ollie’s Camera

Shovel Probe OP5

0 - 48 Undifferentiated brown sandy loam with a high percentage of large, rounded river cobbles. Slightly lower cobble content than in previous probes.


Notes: Rocky impasse at 48 cm. Some fractured cobbles encountered but do not appear to be culturally derived. Frames 15,16

Shovel Probe OP6

0 - 60 Sandy loam with low content of rounded pebbles and cobbles. No Cultural Material Notes: Frame 19; substantial ground disturbance noted within the area.

Shovel Probe OP7

0-40 Sandy loam with moderate content of rounded pebbles and cobbles.


Notes: Rocky impasse at 40cm; ground disturbance noted within the area. Shovel Probe OP8

0 - 37 Sandy loam with moderate content of rounded pebbles and cobbles.


Notes: Rocky impasse at 37cm; ground disturbance noted within the area. Frame 23 Shovel Probe OP9

0-68 Fine sandy alluvium with virtually no larger material present No Cultural Material Notes: Frame 25


DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(CM)


Shovel Probe OP10

0-63 Fine sandy alluvium with virtually no larger material present No Cultural Material Notes: Frame 44

Shovel Probe R1

0-32 Undifferentiated brown sandy loam with a high percentage of large, rounded river cobbles.

Two flakes, three shell, seven brown colorless glass fragments, “N¯…” embossed on one fragment

Notes: Rocky impasse at 32cm; Photo frames 59-61 Shovel Probe R2

0-33 Brown sandy loam, high concentration of pebbles to cobbles with some small boulders, moderate compaction


Shovel Probe R3



Notes: Frame 62 Shovel Probe R4


Four small modern bottle glass shards

Notes: Rocky impasse at 25cm; Photo frames 63, 64. Probe placed in area containing modern debris on ground surface: brick, chalk, glass

Shovel Probe R5



50-53 Grayish white ashy sand, very compacted No Cultural Material Shovel Probe SD01



45-65 Coarse gray sand, high concentration of white calcified pebbles to cobbles, moderate compaction


Shovel Probe SD02



Shovel Probe SD03

0-23 Brown sandy loam, high concentration of pebbles to cobbles with some small boulders, moderate compaction, large boulder at 16cm to at least 23cm covering whole probe bottom


Shovel Probe SD04




DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(CM)


Shovel Probe SD05



Shovel Probe SD06



Shovel Probe SD07

0-50 Brown sandy loam with crushed (fill rock) with blacktop chunks mixed in, some rounded pebbles, moderate compaction


Shovel Probe SD08

0-63 Brown sandy loam, low to moderate concentration of pebbles and cobbles, moderate compaction


Shovel Probe SD09

0-40 Brown fine grained sand, no to low gravel content, light compaction


40-70 Very compact clay No Cultural Material Shovel Probe SD10

0-35 Brown fine grained sand, no to low gravel content, light compaction, crushed rock fill impasse at 35cm


Shovel Probe SD11

0-68 Brown fine grained sand with very low gravel content, light compaction


Shovel Probe MH01

0-43 10YR 3/3, Dark brown fine to medium grained loamy sand with high cobble and gravel content

11 non-descript brown glass fragments, 0-30 cm

Shovel Probe MH02

0-39 10YR 3/3, Dark brown fine to medium grained loamy sand with high cobble and gravel content

1 CCS flake

39-47 10YR 4/4, Dark yellowish brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with high cobble and gravel content, whitish/grey fine to coarse grained cemented sands


Shovel Probe MH03

0-39 10YR 3/3 Dark brown fine to medium grained loamy sand with high cobble and gravel content

1 FGVR flake (basalt?), 1 shell fragment

39-40 10YR 4/4 Dark yellowish brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with high cobble and gravel content, whitish/grey fine to coarse grained cemented sands



DEPTH

BELOW

SURFACE

(CM)


Shovel Probe MH04

0-49 10YR 4/4, Dark yellowish brown fine to coarse grained gravelly loamy sand with high cobble content


Shovel Probe MH05

0-49 10YR 3/3 Dark brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with moderate cobble and gravel content

1 CCS flake (shatter), approximately 30 fresh water mussel shell fragments

49-51 Whitish/grey fine grained sand No Cultural Material Shovel Probe MH06

0-50 10YR 3/3 Dark brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with high gravels and moderate cobble content


Shovel Probe MH07

0-70 10YR 3/3 Dark brown fine to 10YR 4/4, dark yellowish brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with moderate cobble and gravel content, 10YR 8/4, very pale brown compacted fine grained clay mottled from 35-40cmbs

3 modern trash fragments from 0-30 cm

Shovel Probe MH08

0-54 10YR 3/3 Dark brown fine to coarse grained loamy sand with low cobble and gravel content


54-69 10YR 4/2, Dark grayish brown fine to coarse grained sand with few gravels, heavily compacted



APPENDIX B: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE & ISOLATE INVENTORY FORMS

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY COVER SHEET

Documents

Transcript of CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY COVER SHEET