draft cra for groveland park - mercer island 5feb16 and sep17...pleistocene (booth et al. 2004). the...

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR GROVELAND PARK,

MERCER ISLAND, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

February 5, 2016

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Exhibit F

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

FOR GROVELAND PARK, MERCER ISLAND, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Report Prepared for Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect PS

4405 7th Avenue SE Lacey, WA 98503

By Brandy A. Rinck

February 5, 2016

Project No. 34197 Report No. 16-55

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

221 1st Ave W, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119

CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET

Author: Rinck, Brandy A. Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for Groveland Park, Mercer Island,

King County, Washington

Date of Report: February 5, 2016 County(ies): King Section: 24 Township: 24 N Range: 4E

Quad: Seattle South Acres: 1.4 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? 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

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 February 5, 2016 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR GROVELAND PARK,

MERCER ISLAND, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Mercer Island Parks and Recreation proposes a new pier surrounding the existing swimming area at Groveland Park on Mercer Island in King County, Washington (Figure 1). On behalf of Mercer Island, Landscape Architect Robert Droll retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the project. This cultural resources assessment report details the natural and cultural setting of the project area and presents the methods and results of field survey. No significant cultural materials were identified in the heavily disturbed project area during the assessment.

A. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Proposed project activities and elements: Mercer Island Parks and Recreation proposes to replace two existing piers that currently delineate the Groveland Park swim area with one new fixed pier (Figure 2). An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lift will be added to the new pier. A floating breakwater will be installed in the water, and the sandy bottom of the swim area will slowly transition to lake bed. The project will affect approximately 360 feet (110 m) of shoreline. Shoreline restoration is proposed for portions of the pocket beach outside the swim area. Upland project elements include adding theater steps to access the beach and turf terrace to the current grassy areas near the existing restroom. The maximum depth of ground disturbance associated with these project elements is currently unknown. A portion of the new pier will overlap the footprint of the southernmost old pier.

2. Regulatory Context: The pier replacement project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, because it will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The NHPA requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects of their undertaking on historic properties. Historic properties are those that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and may include buildings or other structures, archaeological sites, and traditional cultural properties. To qualify for listing in the NRHP, a district, site, structure, building, or object must generally be 50 years of age, possess integrity of physical characteristics, and meet at least one of four criteria of significance (36 CFR 60.4) at the national, state, or local level.

The USACE has its own regulations for meeting its responsibilities under the NHPA (33 CFR 325, Appendix C). Sites that are important enough to protect or to mitigate are termed “designated historic properties” by the USACE. A designated historic property is listed in or is eligible for listing in the NRHP by meeting the same criteria discussed above. A purpose of this report is to advise the USACE of the potential for the project to affect designated historic properties and recommend additional investigation as warranted.

In addition, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist will be filed for the project, which requires a Shoreline Permit and other permits from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The project may also receive funding from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. Other relevant Washington state laws address archaeological sites and Native American burials. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act [RCW 27.53] prohibits knowingly excavating or

2 Cultural Resources Assessment for Groveland Park

SWCA Environmental Consultants February 5, 2016 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

disturbing prehistoric and historic archaeological sites on public or private land. The Indian Graves and Records Act [RCW 27.44] prohibits knowingly destroying American Indian graves and provides that inadvertent disturbance through construction or other activities requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe.

This report aids the project in complying with federal and state laws and regulations by identifying historic properties and determining sensitivity for the inadvertent discovery of buried historic properties (archaeological sites), so that appropriate plans can be made to avoid or minimize damage to them.

B. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

1. Geologic Setting The project is within the Puget Lowland, a geographic province that separates the Olympic Mountains from the Western Cascades. The present topography of the Puget Lowland is primarily the result of continental glaciers that extended south from what is now Canada during the Pleistocene (Booth et al. 2004). The most recent ice sheet advance occurred during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation, which reached Seattle around 17,400 calibrated years before the present (cal BP) (Booth et al. 2004; Dethier et al. 1995; Heusser 1973). The ice sheet extended as far south as Tenino before it retreated from the Puget Lowland by 16,400 cal BP (Troost and Booth 2008).

Proglacial lakes formed behind the retreating ice front, connecting glacially carved meltwater channels. Hundreds of meters of unconsolidated till and outwash sediment were exposed on the newly deglaciated upland surfaces around the lakes (Alt and Hyndman 1994; Borden and Troost 2001; Dethier et al. 1995; Galster and Laprade 1991; Liesch et al. 1963; Porter and Swanson 1998; Troost and Stein 1995; Waitt and Thorson 1983; Yount et al. 1993). Lacustrine sediments were deposited in the lake bottoms. The project is on the shoreline of modern Lake Washington, which occupies one of the largest glacially carved troughs in the Puget Lowland. In some places, such as the project area, the ice carved the trough so deeply that old pre-Fraser glacial deposits are exposed in steep bluffs. Small creeks drain the glacial upland, forming small alluvial fans where they meet Lake Washington. A summary of the previous geotechnical borings completed for this project which encountered pre-Fraser glacial outwash, is in Attachment A (Levine and McCaughan 2015).

Changing environmental conditions throughout the subsequent Holocene have affected the distribution of resources, suitability of particular landforms for human occupation, and archaeological site visibility and preservation (Dethier et al. 1995; Dragovich et al. 1994; Thorson 1989). For example, the surface elevation of water in what is now Lake Washington fluctuated in tandem with sea level in Puget Sound throughout the early Holocene because Lake Washington was then connected to the marine Duwamish embayment (Dragovich et al. 1994; Easterbrook 1993; Leopold 1982; Mullineaux 1970). Marine water drained from Lake Washington Bay, and the trough began to fill with freshwater by about 14,800 cal BP (Troost 2011). Rebound of the land from the weight of glacial ice was complete by 11,600 cal BP, causing the isolation of the north end of Lake Washington from the Puget Sound (Clague and James 2002; Thorson 1981, 1989). The south end of Lake Washington continued to be influenced by the Puget Sound until the Cedar River delta expanded across its outlet and completely separated Lake Washington from the rest of Puget Sound (Troost 2011).

Cultural Resources Assessment for Groveland Park 3


Evidence of relatively rapid fresh water inundation of the early and middle Holocene lakeshores is apparent from buried shorelines around Lake Washington (Thorson 1998). Heavy rainfall, drought, and tectonic activity may have also caused major fluctuations in lake levels during the middle to late Holocene (Chrzastowski 1983). Lake Washington shoreline inundation continued at a slower rate after sea level reached equilibrium in Puget Sound about 5,000 years ago. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 redirected the lake’s outflow from its south end near Renton to the west through Lake Union. The ship canal opening caused the level of Lake Washington to drop approximately 2.7 m (9 feet). The drop in lake level exposed several Native American camp sites and features along the lake’s shoreline, as well as most of the project area (Carter 1917; Thrush 2007). The drop in shoreline elevation also exacerbated erosion along the lakeshore.

Adding to the complexity of the Lake Washington shoreline history is activity along the Seattle Fault Zone (SFZ), which extends from Seattle to approximately Issaquah and crosses under the middle of Mercer Island. Holocene earthquake activity on the SFZ is reflected by more than 5 m (16 feet) of uplift that occurred south of the SFZ around 1,100 years ago (Atwater 1992; Blakely et al. 2002; Brocher et al. 2001; Bucknam et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 1994; Thorson 1993). Late Holocene earthquakes on the SFZ likely caused liquefaction, landslides, and slumping along the Lake Washington shoreline (Karlin and Abella 1996). For example, a segment of forest that slid into Lake Washington was identified by early explorers just north of Groveland Park (Figure 3) (United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1910). As a result of the unstable shorelines, imported fill commonly supports the roads that skirt the shoreline of Lake Washington.

2. Paleoenvironment Vegetation composition and animal distributions in the Puget Lowland have changed significantly since the end of the Pleistocene. Lodgepole pine colonized newly deglaciated surfaces, followed by Douglas-fir, white pine, spruce, and alder (Barnosky et al. 1987). The Pacific Northwest climate was warmer and drier than today’s climate between approximately 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, with drought-like conditions in the summers (Whitlock 1992). Forests were more open and prairies were common throughout the Puget Lowland. After about 6000 years ago, climate cooled and precipitation increased. By about 5,000 years ago, the modern closed forests of western red cedar, western hemlock, and Douglas-fir were established (Whitlock 1992). Climate and vegetation have remained generally stable in western Washington since about 5,000 years ago.

Today, vegetation across much of the Puget Lowland consists of forests of the Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock) zone. These forests are characterized by western hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas-fir with a dense shrub and herbaceous understory that includes sword fern, bracken fern, salal, Oregon grape, ocean spray, blackberry, red huckleberry, and red elderberry (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Red alder, black cottonwood, big-leaf and vine maple predominate along streams and their associated wetlands and marshes, along with willow, alder, cranberries, cattail, reeds, skunk cabbage, nettles, and wapato (Deur and Turner 2005; Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Significant alterations to habitats in the region began with changes in land use beginning in the 1840s, when Euroamerican farmers began staking claims, clearing forests, and plowing land.

Prior to Euroamerican settlement of the region, numerous animal species that were important to Native American diets inhabited the Puget Lowland and evidence of these faunal resources are found in assemblages of archaeological sites around Lake Washington. Perhaps the most important resources for resident Native Americans of this area were the salmon species that



migrated throughout the Lake Washington basin (Williams et al. 1975). While coastal marine resources like shellfish and sea mammals were important to pre-contact people, terrestrial resources were likely more significant in the inland part of the Puget Lowland. Large mammals such as black-tailed deer, elk, black bear, and mountain lion were residents of the area and smaller mammals like opossum, rabbit, squirrel, chipmunk, skunk, red fox, porcupine, and weasel were also found (Kruckeberg 1991; Larrison 1967). Seasonally abundant migratory waterfowl including ducks and geese would have been a supplemental food resource, and fur-bearing animals that flourish around lakes, such as beaver, mink, river otter, muskrat, fox, and raccoon were also important.

3. Pre-Contact Culture History The earliest well-established cultural period in North America, designated the Paleoindian period, is based on a small number of isolated fluted projectile points (Avey n.d.; Carlson 1990; Meltzer and Dunnell 1987). The closest was found near Redmond on the north edge of Lake Sammamish, about 10 miles northeast of the project area (Kopperl et al. 2010). Other evidence of possible early human occupation involving the pursuit of now-extinct fauna was found at the Manis mastodon site on the Olympic Peninsula (Gustafson and Manis 1984; Kirk and Daugherty 1978). Inferences about Paleoindian lifeways have been limited to presumptions of tool function based on the isolated stone tools and their rare association with large extinct mammals. The projectile point styles of the Paleoindian period did not persist past 10,000 years ago, when they were replaced by regional variants of lithic technology (Carlson and Dalla Bona 1996). Although it is possible that cultural materials dating to the Paleoindian period are in the project vicinity, encountering Paleoindian artifacts during pier construction is unlikely.

Human occupation during the early and middle Holocene is better understood than the Paleoindian period because of several archaeological sites that represent the period from 8,000 to 5,000 years ago, locally termed “Olcott” (Butler 1961; Fladmark 1982; Kidd 1964; Mattson 1985). Typical Olcott artifacts are large stemmed or leaf-shaped points, scrapers, flake tools, and blade cores formed of basalt and dacite toolstone. Olcott sites, often located on upland terraces or lake shores, usually do not contain features, such as hearths or storage pits (Blukis Onat et al. 2000; Carlson 1990; Morgan 1999; Wessen and Welch 1991). Age estimates of Olcott sites have been inferred based on their similarity to dated components of assemblages from archaeological sites in British Columbia, as well as using projectile point cross-dating, obsidian hydration analysis, and luminescence dating (Carlson and Dalla Bona 1996; Chatters et al. 2011). Encountering Olcott artifacts during construction is also possible.

Archaeological evidence of Native Americans living between about 5,000 and 2,500 years ago is more common, especially along the modern shorelines of Puget Sound. Population increased during the middle Holocene, as subsistence gradually transitioned towards a marine resource base with seasonal economic strategies and a diminishing dependence on mammals (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). Past subsistence activities left behind observable markers in the archaeological record that tell us about the lifeways of past people. The seasonality of subsistence during the middle Holocene, for example, is evidenced by a variety of archaeological sites, site distributions, and artifact types, such as groundstone tools and toggling harpoons (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). Evidence of specialized subsistence is more common in middle Holocene coastal sites compared to archaeological sites of similar age from the interior valleys. It is possible that archaeological materials dating to the



middle Holocene are in the project vicinity, and if present, they would likely be encountered along the pre-1916 shoreline that is at the inland extent of the project.

Native American culture shows further differentiation based on subsistence strategy between 2,500 years ago and Euroamerican contact, during the late Holocene. Archaeological sites dating to the late Holocene are characterized by a marine-oriented culture on the Pacific Coast, a mixed marine and terrestrial economy on the Puget Sound, and an inland terrestrial mammal and riverine fishing culture (Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat 1987). Large semisedentary populations of Native Americans occupied cedar plank houses on protected tidal shorelines and at river confluences. Seasonal camps were used for hunting, fishing, or resource gathering during the spring, summer, and fall (Ames and Maschner 1999). Archaeological evidence for these settlement and subsistence patterns can be seen in the greater diversity of hunting, fishing, plant processing, and woodworking tools made of local and imported materials. Wealth-status objects, status differentiation in burials, art objects, and ornaments are also represented (Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat 1987; Fladmark 1982; Matson and Coupland 1995). Similar to middle Holocene sites, archaeological materials dating to the late Holocene could possibly exist in the project vicinity. If present, late Holocene sites would likely be encountered just below the swim beach fill along the pre-1916 shoreline at the inland extent of the project.

4. Ethnohistory At the time of European contact, numerous small autonomous groups of Lushootseed-speaking Coast Salish people inhabited the Puget Sound region. They generally made their homes along marine waterways, major rivers, or lakes that served as convenient transportation corridors as well as rich resource procurement areas. Primary residences usually consisted of substantial split-plank buildings at permanent village sites, while temporary camps provided shelter during seasonal fishing, hunting, and gathering trips. Although villages in the region retained political autonomy, trade, marriage, and mutual ceremonies created bonds between neighboring groups (Castile 1985; Suttles and Lane 1990).

Mercer Island is in the ethnographic territory of the Duwamish, or Xacho-absh, a Lushootseed-speaking group who occupied the shorelines of Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Elliot Bay, and sections of the Duwamish, Black, and Cedar River watershed (Stevens 1854; United States Court of Claims 1927; Ruby and Brown 1992; Smith 1940; Waterman 2001). The Duwamish were linked by marital ties and shared use of some territory with the Suquamish to the west, Snohomish and Sammamish to the north, Snoqualmie to the east, and groups on the White and Green Rivers to the south collectively known today as Muckleshoot (Lane and Lane 1977; Waterman 1922).

The Duwamish had many small camps around Lake Washington where groups congregated to fish, harvest, and gather plant resources throughout the spring, summer, and autumn. Salmon provided the local inhabitants with a dependable food source along with clams, crabs, and waterfowl (Wandrey 1975; Waterman 1922). Deer and other game were hunted in the surrounding glacial upland forests where berries, bulbs, and roots were also gathered. The Duwamish returned to their more permanent villages after making their seasonal rounds, carrying back and preserving smoked salmon, shellfish, game, and plant foods. During winter, family groups gathered in their permanent villages for spiritual song and dance (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Smith 1940).



Early twentieth century settlers and ethnographers noted a number of named places that were important to Native Americans near the project along the shores of Lake Washington. For example, La’gw1tsatEb, or “taking off,” is the name for the south end of Mercer Island and TsEktsEk3a’bats, or “gooseberry bushes,” is the name for the north end of Mercer Island. One named place, Q3oq3o’btsi for “water lilies,” is just south of the project area on the west shore of Mercer Island (Waterman 2001). Across lake Washington from the project area is SkEba’kst (squbáqst), or “nose,” for the north end of Bailey Peninsula and Cka’lapsEb (tsuqálapsub), or “neck,” for the oak-prairie covered isthmus that separates Bailey Peninsula and Seward Park from the mainland (Thrush 2007). On early historical maps Lake Washington is called Lake Duwamish (Thrush 2007). Permanent Duwamish settlements may be absent from Mercer Island because folklore said the island sank into Lake Washington each night (Padgett 2013).

The traditional way of life changed in the mid-1800s when the first Euroamerican settlers arrived in the Puget Lowland following explorers and capitalists (Bass 1937; Watt 1931). The Duwamish provided the settlers and pioneers with labor, salmon, shellfish, baskets, and other resources until the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott directed them to move to the Port Madison Indian Reservation at Suquamish (Thompson 1988; Thrush 2007). Today, many people of Duwamish descent live among the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, and Tulalip Tribal members on reservations. Other descendants of the Seattle area’s native inhabitants continue to seek independent Duwamish Tribal status (Ruby and Brown 1992).

5. History The first Euroamerican settlers in the Seattle area, the Denny Party, arrived in 1851 and immediately set to work carving homes and farms from the forested hills surrounding what is now downtown Seattle (Ficken and LeWarne 1988). As lands in the Seattle area were claimed, settlement expanded beyond Seattle to the north, south, and east towards Mercer Island. The communities that were established east of Seattle usually focused on economic pursuits, such as the coal and lumber industries.

Residential settlement in the region was stimulated by the Donation Land Act of 1850. But Mercer Island remained relatively undisturbed, with the exception of logging, well after the island was named. The name Mercer Island first appears on a General Land Office (GLO) map of the area from 1863. Mercer Island was probably named after Thomas Mercer from Seattle (Gellatly 1989). It is also possible the island was named for Aaron Mercer, brother of Thomas, who built a home near Mercer Slough in Bellevue (Gellatly 1989). A GLO map from 1865 shows no towns, cabins, or roads in the project vicinity. Though many donation land claims were made in the 1870s, those settlers often did not improve their land and lost their claims. Two patents were issued to Anthony Hyde and Phillip Ritz for land in the project area in 1871, for example, but neither of these men is listed on later property records (Bureau of Land Management 2016). Euroamerican settlement of Mercer Island began in earnest in the 1870s when Charles C. Calkins platted East Seattle, at the north end of Mercer Island (Padgett 2013). Calkins built a hotel, houses, and a ferry dock that allowed steamers to stop at Mercer Island (Gellatly 1989). East Seattle had the first post office, school, library, and telephone system on the island (Gellatly 1989). The first road was built on Mercer Island in 1886. Additional roads were constructed soon after and a bridge between Barnabie Point on Mercer Island and Enatai in Bellevue was constructed in 1923. The wood bridge was replaced with a floating bridge in 1940 (Gellatly 1989). The roads and bridges allowed for additional residential settlement of Mercer Island, and the



community grew quickly in the 1950s and 1960s. Later in 1989, Interstate-90 was constructed alongside the floating bridge. In 1902 the project area was submerged in Lake Washington. A small creek drained the upland just south of the project area, and there may have been a Duwamish camp site or a logging camp at the mouth of this creek (Figure 4). Groveland Park is shown on historical maps as early as 1907 (Anderson Map Company 1907) (Figure 5). The park as a whole appears to have been larger in 1907 than it is today, but the modern swim beach area was inundated by Lake Washington west of the park. The beach area would have been exposed after 1916 when the water level in Lake Washington dropped approximately 2.7 m (9 feet). Groveland Park became very popular prior to 1965 when it was used as a summer bible camp for off-island religious groups (Gellatly 1977). The park property was purchased by the City for a swim beach in 1965.

6. Previous Studies Few cultural resources investigations have been conducted on Mercer Island and fewer archaeological sites have been identified. Most of the previous cultural resources work on Mercer Island has been conducted on the very north end of the island. Four cultural resources investigations have been completed within 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of the project. These include one small survey on the Mercer Island upland and three investigations in and around Seward Park across Lake Washington from the project area.

Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Within Approximately 1.5 Miles of the Project Area.

AUTHOR DATE PROJECT RELATION TO PROJECT AREA

RESULTS*

Wickwire 2005 Seattle Parks and Recreation's Historic Resources Plan 0.6 mi W Seward Park Kent 2006 Cultural Resources Survey for the Seward Park Beach

Nourishment Section 544 Project, City of Seattle, King County, Washington

0.6 mi W None

Miller et al. 2012 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Basin 44 CSO Reduction Project, City of Seattle, King County, Washington

0.9 mi W 45KI1184

Stipe 2012 Verizon Wireless SEA SMI Alt. 2 Cellular Facility Cultural Resources Review

0.6 mi SE None

*Newly recorded cultural material identified within 1.5 miles of project area.

One assessment was completed for a Verizon cell tower and no cultural materials were identified (Stipe 2012). Similarly, no cultural materials were found during an assessment for a Seward Park beach nourishment project (Kent 2006). Other cultural resources investigations in Seward Park did identify cultural resources belonging to the historical built environment including a bathhouse, two comfort stations, a fish hatchery, and an inn (Wickwire 2005). Seward Park was developed by the Olmsted Brothers in 1913, and the Seward Park Inn is a City Landmark. Site 45KI1184 is a segment of historical wood-stave sewer pipe, identified during a survey within and adjacent to Seward Park for Seattle Public Utilities’ CSO reduction project (Gilpin and Rainka 2011; Miller et al. 2012) (Table 2). One other site, the Martha Washington School site 45KI1092, was recorded south of Seward Park by during a survey in Martha Washington Park (Timm et al. 2012). 45KI1092 consists of old school buildings, a fruit tree, pavement features, and non-diagnostic glass and ceramic fragments.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Within Approximately 1.5 Miles of the Project Area.

SITE NO. COMPILER/DATE AGE DESCRIPTION RELATION TO PROJECT AREA

45KI1092 Timm et al. 2012 ca. 1850– Martha Washington School Site, fruit tree and pavement 1.3 mi SW



SITE NO. COMPILER/DATE AGE DESCRIPTION RELATION TO PROJECT AREA

1988 features, non-diagnostic historical artifacts 45KI1184 Gilpin and Rainka 2011 Mid-1930s Seward Park Trunk Sewer Overflow Outfall; historical pipe 1 mi SW

C. EXPECTATIONS

Landforms along the shoreline of Lake Washington were highly productive for Native Americans because they developed at the ecotone between aquatic and terrestrial land systems. The margins of Lake Washington have a moderate to high potential for buried pre-contact archaeological resources, as these landforms represent favorable locations for past resource procurement and processing. The types of pre-contact archaeological sites most likely to be identified in the project area include temporary camps or processing and cooking areas. Isolated artifacts that were dropped or discarded during use along the shoreline could also be identified throughout the project area.

Today, the early and middle Holocene margins of Lake Washington are buried below younger alluvium, colluvium, and fill, and burial of old lake margins could have preserved cultural materials. The late Holocene lakeshore, however, might be above or below the modern shoreline, depending on the effects of earthquake-related subsidence. Past swim beach, road, and pier construction, as well as compaction of the soft natural sediment in the project area temper the likelihood of encountering intact pre-contact period cultural resources.

Potential for encountering significant early historical archaeological resources is low in the immediate project area because it was part of Lake Washington prior to historical adjustment of the water elevation for ship traffic. Potential for encountering historical cultural resources that post-date 1916 was determined to be moderate based on historic maps. If any archaeological resources were present in the project area, they might have been buried below fill. The fill itself could include significant historical cultural materials if stable surfaces are identified between episodic fill layers. The most probable evidence of historical activities in the project area would have been in the form of a buried road surfaces, pilings, water management features, and possibly small structural elements related to the historical bible camp or earlier park facilities.

D. METHODS Prior to field investigations, SWCA staff searched the Washington State site inventory and records at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to identify previous cultural resource assessments and archaeological and historical sites recorded near the survey area. Additional archival research examined documents, maps, research publications, and books that provided information about the natural history, human settlement, and land use on and around Mercer Island. Background research on the geology and geomorphology of the project area included consulting U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) geologic maps and soil surveys, as well as a geotechnical report completed for the project.

The field assessment included pedestrian survey of the project area and subsurface shovel probe testing for buried archaeological materials. The entire surface portion of the project area was surveyed. The submerged portion of the project area was also visually inspected from the shoreline. Subsurface investigations were focused on accessible portions of the project area along the shoreline where fill was thinnest. Shovel probes were spaced approximately 20 m (66 feet) apart. The probes were 40 cm (1.3 feet) in diameter and were excavated to 1 m (3.3 feet). The shovel probes were



extended up to 160 cm below the surface (cmbs) (5.2 feet below the surface [fbs]) using a 10-cm-diameter (4-inch-diameter) hand auger to test for archaeological resources buried deeply below fill.

Excavated sediment was screened through ¼-inch mesh, and observations regarding matrix characteristics and the presence of archaeological materials were recorded on standard shovel probe forms. Cultural materials identified in the probes were described, photographed, and returned to the probe of origin. Digital photographs were taken of the survey area from various directions and distances during fieldwork, and photograph information was recorded on a log. A Trimble hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit was used to collect the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of the shovel probes and additional features within the project area. Daily work records describing field conditions, procedures, and contacts were also completed. All field forms and photographs are on file at SWCA.

E. RESULTS

1. Fieldwork Summary: Fieldwork was completed on January 26, 2015, by archaeologists Brandy Rinck and Cyrena Undem. The entire project area was surveyed, and no significant cultural materials were identified along the shoreline. Cultural materials were also not observed in the inundated portions of the project area that were visible from the shoreline and existing pier. In addition to the pedestrian survey, the archaeologists excavated eight shovel probes (SPs) (Figure 6). No significant cultural materials were identified in the subsurface investigations, which primarily encountered fill. Conditions during fieldwork were cool, rainy, and overcast.

2. Field Conditions: The project area is a small bench of land at the base of a very steep slope on the southwest shoreline of Mercer Island (Figure 7). A narrow road switchbacks down from the upland and Groveland Park’s parking lot (Figure 8). The topography on the steep slope adjacent to the access road is hummocky, suggesting past land sliding (Figure 9). The paved access road ends at the base of the hill on a manicured bench of modified land. The bench is landscaped with a narrow swim beach at the base of a gentle slope. The swim beach does not extend smoothly down into the lake. Rather, the beach is retained by a concrete wall, forming a step above the water line (Figure 10).

Two fixed piers delineate the in-water portion of the swim beach. The piers are supported by concrete where they connect to the dry land and wood pilings that extend into the lake bottom. Smaller pilings that prevent people or boats from entering the swim area line the larger of the two piers on the south and west side of the swim area. The swim area substrate is clean and sandy.

The project area is very disturbed. The swim beach itself consists of imported sand, though the sand likely has a local source in the outwash bluffs that back the beach. Several elements in the north third of the project area have caused disturbance, including a fence along the north property line, restrooms with utilities, and installation of a partially buried timber breakwater (Figure 11). The north end of the project area also contains a small section of natural beach that shows evidence for erosion by waves (Figure 12). Causes of disturbance in the central project area include a pier footing, buried irrigation and storm sewer lines, a small wood retaining wall that backs the swim beach, and a concrete seawall that forms a box around the swim beach to hold in



the sand (Figure 13). Disturbance in the south end of the project area relates to construction of a raised volleyball court, heavy landscaping, a fence along the south property boundary, and a large concrete pier footing.

3. Shovel Probe Summary: Five strata were identified in the shovel probes. These include 1) fill, 2) disturbed sediments, 3) old beach deposits, 4) lake sediments, and 5) glacial outwash. Differentiating among outwash, disturbed sediments, old beach, and fill strata was very difficult because each stratum originates from the same glacial sediment source in the steep hillside backing the beach.

The fill stratum includes modern swim beach sands, road fill, and landscaping material. Average thickness of fill across the project area is 46 cm (1.5 feet). Fill was an average of 52 cm (1.7 feet) thick adjacent to the lakeshore and 31 cm (1 foot) thick along the backshore. The fill was thickest at the south end of the project area and thinnest in the central backshore and generally consisted of gravelly sands, similar to the modern swim beach substrate, with a few beds of clean sand. The fill contained a few temporary buried surfaces with small roots or wood, marking pauses in historical filling episodes. A couple pieces of plastic and one small brown bottle glass fragment were identified scattered in the fill, but other cultural materials were not observed in the probes. A summary of the sediments and cultural materials encountered in the shovel probes is in Attachment A.

The naturally deposited sediment immediately below the fill was usually disturbed (Figures 14 through 20). The average depth of disturbance extends an additional 30 cm (1 foot) from the base of the fill. Undisturbed gravelly and sandy beach sediments were encountered at an average of 83 cm (2.7 feet) below the fill adjacent to the shoreline in SP-1 through SP-6. Undisturbed sandy glacial outwash was encountered at an average of 62 cm (2 feet) below the fill in the backshore in SP-7 and SP-8. Finer-grained, bedded lake sediments were encountered at the base of SP-1 below 105 cmbs (3.4 fbs) (Figure 21). Significant buried surfaces were not identified in the naturally deposited beach and glacial deposits below the fill and no cultural materials were observed.

Probes were not excavated in the swim beach because the entire structure is infilled, extending the shoreline west into Lake Washington. Fill at the swim beach is about 120 cm (4 feet) thick based on the height of the concrete retaining structure.

F. RECOMMENDATIONS No significant cultural materials were identified during pedestrian survey and subsurface testing at the Groveland Park swim beach. No additional cultural resources investigations are recommended. The project area was impacted by Holocene tectonic activity and was inundated in Lake Washington prior to 1916.

This cultural resources assessment shows that there is an average of 46 cm (1.5 feet) of fill in the project area. The fill overlies disturbed beach and landslide deposits or glacial sediment that pre-dates the arrival of humans to the region. The average depth of disturbance extends to an average of 77 cmbs (2.5 fbs). Intact buried surfaces with potential for significant archaeological materials were not identified.

This cultural resources assessment did not test the subsurface within Lake Washington where early Holocene shorelines might be preserved below the modern mud line. Project plans partially overlap the existing pier footprint, so project disturbance will be limited. SWCA recommends in-water work



be archaeologically monitored following a monitoring and discovery plan if new pilings are installed in previously undisturbed areas using a method that provides observable spoils, such as augering.

There is always a small chance that undiscovered resources are within a given project area. If historic or pre-contact cultural remains such as shell layers, bone, fire-modified rock, or stone tools are inadvertently discovered at any time during project ground disturbance, then the lead federal agency representative, archaeologists at DAHP, a professional archaeologist, and cultural representatives from the consulting Tribes should be immediately contacted. If project activities expose human remains, either in the form of burials or isolated bones and teeth, or other mortuary items, work in that area should be stopped. Local law enforcement should be immediately contacted along with DAHP and the Tribes. In no case should additional ground disturbance be undertaken until a process has been agreed upon by the abovementioned parties, and no exposed human remains should be left unattended.

G. CONSULTATION

1. Provide evidence of consultation with concerned Native American tribes, SHPO, local preservation personnel, other government agencies: Prior to fieldwork, cultural resources representatives of the Duwamish Tribe, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the Snoqualmie Tribe were contacted to solicit information about the project area and to coordinate fieldwork. This inquiry was for informational purposes only, and does not constitute formal consultation that may be required for the project. Copies of the correspondence are in Attachment B.

H. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appropriate forms attached for each site? [ ] Yes [ ] No [X] N/A 2. Maps attached? [X] Yes (Figures 1 through 6) 3. Photograph attached? [X] Yes (Figures 7 through 21) 4. Other attachments? [X] Yes: Shovel Probe Summary Geotechnical Borehole Summary Tribal Correspondence

I. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alt, David D. and Donald W. Hyndman 1994 Roadside Geology of Washington. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana. Ames, K. M. and H. D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, New

York. Anderson Map Company 1907 King County 1907, Washington. Township 24 North, Range 4 East. Page 11. Anderson Map

Company. Atwater, Brian F. 1992 A Tsunami About 1000 Years Ago in Puget Sound, Washington. Science 258:1614–1616. Avey, Mike



n.d. Fluted Point Occurrences in Washington State. Fort Steilacoom Community College. Report on file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Barnosky, C.W., P.M Anderson, and P.J. Bartleinl 1987 The Northwestern U.S. During Deglaciation; Vegetational History and Paleoclimatic Implications.

In Geology of North America, North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation, Vol. K-3, edited by W.F. Ruddiman and H.E. Wright, Jr. Geological Society in America, Boulder, Colorado.

Bass, Sophie Frye 1937 Pig-Tail Days in Old Seattle. Binfords & Mort Publishers. Portland, Oregon. Blakely, Richard J., Ray E. Wells, Craig S. Weaver, and Samuel Y. Johnson 2002 Location, Structure, and Seismicity of the Seattle Fault Zone, Washington: Evidence from

Aeromagnetic Anomalies, Geologic Mapping, and Seismic-Reflection Data. Geological Society of America Bulletin 114:169–177.

Blukis Onat, Astrida R. 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in

the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Blukis Onat, Astrida R., Maury E. Morgenstein, Philippe D. LeTourneau, Robert P. Stone, Jerre Kosta and Paula Johnson 2000 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe’yuq - Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, Washington.

BOAS, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Booth, Derek B., Kathy Goetz-Troost, John J. Clague, and Richard B. Waitt 2004 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, Volume 1, edited by A.

R. Gillespie, S. C. Porter, and B. F. Atwater, pp. 17–43. Developments in Quaternary Science. Elsevier.

Borden, Richard K. and Kathy G. Troost 2001 Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy in the South-Central Puget Lowland, Pierce County, Washington.

Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Olympia, Washington.

Brocher, Thomas M., Tom Parsons, Richard J. Blakely, Nikolas I. Christensen, Michael A. Fisher, Ray E. Wells and the SHIPS Working Group 2001 Three-dimensional geometry of crustal faults, basins, and uplifts in Puget Lowland, Washington;

results from SHIPS, the 1998 Seismic Hazards Investigation in Puget Sound. Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (B7):13541–13564.

Bucknam, Robert C., Eileen Hemphill-Haley and Estella B. Leopold 1992 Abrupt Uplift within the Past 1700 Years at Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Science

258:1611–1614.



Bureau of Land Management 2016 General Land Office Records. United States Department of the Interior. Available at:

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=0 Accessed January 25, 2016.

Butler, B. R. 1961 The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State

College Museum, Pocatello, ID (No. 5). Carlson, R. L. 1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 60-69. Handbook of North

American Indians, Vol. 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Carlson, R. L. and L. Dalla Bona 1996 Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Carter, M. J. 1917 Lake Washington’s New Beach Line. Town Crier 14 April, 1917. Castile, George Pierre (editor) 1985 The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Myron Eells. University of Washington Press,

Seattle, Washington. Chatters, James C., Jason B. Cooper, Philippe D. LeTourneau, and Lara C. Rooke 2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at 45SN28 and 45SN303 Snohomish County, Washington.

Prepared for the Snohomish County Department of Public Works. AMEC, Earth and Environmental, Bothell, WA.

Chrzastowski, Michael 1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King

County, Washington. Water Resources Investigation Report No. 81-1182. Clague, J. J. and T. S. James 2002 History and isostatic effects of the last ice sheet in southern British Columbia. Quaternary

Science Reviews 21:71–87. Dethier, D. P., Fred Jr. Pessl, R. F. Keuler, M. A. Balzarini, and D. R. Pevear 1995 Late Wisconsin Glaciomarine Deposition and Isostatic Rebound, Northern Puget Lowland,

Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107:1288–1303. Deur, Douglas and Nancy J. Turner 2005 Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North

America. University of Washington Press, Seattle/University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver and Toronto.



Dragovich, Joe D., Patrick T. Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh 1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland-Implications

for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology 22(3):3–26. Easterbrook, Don J. 1993 Surface Processes and Landforms. New York, MacMillan Publishing Company. Ficken, Robert E., and Charles P. LeWarne 1988 Washington, a Centennial History. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Fladmark, K. R. 1982 An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

Galster, Richard W. and William T. Laprade 1991 Geology of Seattle, Washington, United States of America. Bulletin of the Association of

Engineering Geologists 28:239–302. Gilpin, Jennifer and Greg Rainka 2011 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45KI1184, Seward Park Trunk Sewer

Overflow Outfall. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Gellatly, Judy 1977 Mercer Island Heritage. Mercer Island Bicentiennial Committee, Mercer Island, Washington. 1989 Mercer Island Heritage. 2nd Edition. Mercer Island Historical Society, Mercer Island, Washington. Gustafson, C. E. and C. Manis 1984 The Manis Mastondon Site: An Adventure in Prehistory. Manis Enterprises, Sequim, Washington. Haeberlin, Hermann, and Erna Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Heusser, Calvin J. 1973 Environmental Sequence Following the Fraser Advance of the Juan de Fuca Lobe, WA.

Quaternary Research (3):284–306. Johnson, S. Y., C. J.Potter, and J. M. Armentrout 1994 Origin and evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle basin, Washington. Geology 22:71–74. Karlin, R. E. and S. E. B. Abella 1996 A history of Pacific Northwest earthquakes recorded in Holocene sediments from Lake

Washington. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (B3): 6137–6150.



Kent, Ronald 2006 Cultural Resources Survey for the Seward Park Beach Nourishment Section 544 Project, City of

Seattle, King County, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental Resources Section, Seattle, Washington.

Kidd, R. S. 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites.

M.A. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Kirk, Ruth and Richard Daugherty 1978 Exploring Washington Archaeology. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kopperl, Robert E., Christian J. Miss, and Charles M. Hodges 2010 Results of Testing at the Bear Creek Site, 45-KI-839, Redmond, King County, Washington.

Prepared for the City of Redmond, Washington and David Evans and Associates, Inc. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Lane, Robert Brockstedt, and Barbara Lane 1977 Treaties of the Puget Sound: 1854-1855. Institute for the Development of Indian Law,

Washington, D.C. Larrison, Earl J. 1967 Mammals of the Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. Seattle Audubon

Society, Seattle. Leopold, Estella B., Rudy Nickmann, John I. Hedges, and John R. Ertel 1982 Pollen and Lignin Records of Late Quaternary Vegetation, Lake Washington. Science 218:1305–

1307. Levine, Lance and Calvin McCaughan 2015 Geotechnical Engineering Report – Groveland Park Pier Replacement, Mercer Island,

Washington. Prepared for Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, Lacey, Washington. Landau Associates, Olympia, Washington.

Liesch, Bruce A., Charles E. Price, and Kenneth L. Walters 1963 Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Northwestern King County, Washington. Water Supply

Bulletin No. 20. Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation. Olympia, Washington.

Matson, R. G. and G. Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego, California.



Mattson, J. L. 1985 Puget Sound Prehistory: Postglacial Adaptations in the Puget Sound with Archaeological

Implications for a Solution to the "Cascade Problem". Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Meltzer, D. J. and R. C. Dunnell 1987 Fluted Points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:64–67. Miller, Heather Lee, Greg Rainka, Faith Haney, Carol Schultze, Jennifer Gilpin, Jenny Dellert, Cathy Bialas, and Lynn Compas 2012 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Basin 44 CSO Reduction Project, City of Seattle, King County,

Washington. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Historic Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Morgan, V. E. 1999 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late-Holocene Occupations on the

Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington, Volumes I and II. Reports in Archaeology and History 100-108. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington.

Mullineaux, Donald R. 1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington. U.

S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 672. Washington, D.C. Padgett, Priscilla Ledbetter 2013 Images of America: Mercer Island. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC. 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. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,

Oklahoma. Smith, Marian W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. Stevens, Isaac I. 1854 Report on Tribes between the Head of Navigation of the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean:

Indian Tribes West of the Cascades. Letter from Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory to George W. Manypenny, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C., 16 September. Pages 392-459 in Message from the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress at the Commencement of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, Part l, A.O.P. Nicholson Printer. Washington, D.C.



Stipe, Frank 2012 Verizon Wireless SEA SMI Alt. 2 Cellular Facility Cultural Resources Review. Prepared for Verizon

Wireless. Tetra Tech Divisions, Inc., Bothell, Washington. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485–502. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 7, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Thompson, Nile 1988 The Original Residents of Shilshole Bay - Passport to Ballard. In The Centennial Story, edited by

Kay Reinartz, pp. 10–16. Ballard Historical Society and Ballard News Tribune, Seattle, WA. Thorson, Robert M. 1981 Isostatic Effects of the Last Glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. U. S. Geological Survey

Open File Report 81-370. 1989 Glacio-Isostatic Response of the Puget Sound Area, Washington. Geological Society of America

Bulletin 101:1163–1174. 1993 Postglacial offset along the Seattle fault. Science 260(5109):825–826. 1998 Neotectonics and Shoreline Change, Sammamish Delta, Lake Washington. U.S. Geological

Survey, External Research Program Reports, Volume 39. Report prepared for National Earthquakes Hazard Reduction Program Project 1434-HG-97-GR- 03057. Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Connecticut.

Thrush, Coll 2007 Native Seattle, Histories from the Little Crossing Over Place. University of Washington Press,

Seattle. Timm, Serah, Jennifer Gilpin, Shari Maria Silverman, and Matthew Sneddon 2012 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45KI1092, Martha Washington School

Site. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington Troost, Kathy Goetz 2011 Geomorphology and Shoreline History of Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay.

Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’ SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Troost Geological Consulting, Seattle, Washington.

Troost, Kathy Goetz and D. B. Booth 2008 Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area. In Landslides and Engineering Geology of the Seattle,

Washington Area, edited R. L. Baum, J. W. Godt, and L. M. Highland. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology XX: 1-35. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Troost, K. G. and J. K. Stein 1995 Seismic and Aseismic Submergence of Archaeological Deposits in the Past 4,000 Years at Seattle,

Washington. In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, WA: 4000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Report prepared by Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington.



United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1910 Lake Washington, Washington. Chart 6446. Washington, D.C. Available in the NOAA Historical

map and Chart Collection. United States Court of Claims 1927 Number of Duwamish Villages on Duwamish River and Lake Washington. In The Court of Claims

of the United States, The Duwamish, et al. Tribes of Indians v. the United States of America, Claimants Exhibit W-2, filed October 3,1927. Records Group 123. Records of the U.S. Court of Claims No. F-275. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, D.C.

Waitt, R. B. and R. M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran ice sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In Late-Quaternary environments

of the United States, Volume 1, edited by S. C. Porter and H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. 53–70. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Wandrey, Margaret I. 1975 Four Bridges to Seattle, Old Ballard 1853-1907. Ballard Printing and Publishing. Seattle,

Washington. Waterman, T. T. 1922 The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast. The Geographical Review

12:175–194. 2001 [1920] Puget Sound Geography. Edited by V. Hilbert, J. Miller, and Zalmai Zahir. Lushootseed

Press, Federal Way, Washington. Watt, Roberta Frye 1931 Four Wagons West: The Story of Seattle. Metropolitan Press. Portland, Oregon. Wessen, G. G. and J. M. Welch 1991 A Report of Cultural Resource Survey Activities in the Lake Cushman Project Area, Mason

County, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Whitlock, C. 1992 Vegetational and Climatic History of the Pacific Northwest During the Last 20,000 Years:

Implications for Understanding Present-Day Biodiversity. Northwest Environmental Journal 8(1):5–28.

Wickwire, Catherine 2005 Seattle Parks and Recreation's Historic Resources Plan. Submitted to Seattle Parks and

Recreation. MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design, Susan Black Associates Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie and J. J. Amer 1975 Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region.

Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.



Yount, J. C., J. P. Minard, and G. R. Dembroff 1993 Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in the Seattle 30 x 60 Quadrangle. OFR 93-233. U. S.

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.



Figure 1. Project location.



Figu

re 2

. Pro

ject

pla

ns.



Figure 3. Historic map of Mercer Island,1910, showing areas of submerged forests.



Figure 4. T-sheet showing the project area inundated by Lake Washington in 1902 and a tent mapped at the mouth of a steam just south of the project.

Figure 5. Anderson Map Company map showing Groveland Park on the west shoreline of Mercer Island in 1907.



Figure 6. Aerial photograph of the project area showing the locations of archaeological shovel probes and previously completed project geotechnical borings.



Figure 7. Overview of the Groveland Park swim beach; view west.

Figure 8. Road extending down steep slope to swim beach from parking lot; view north.



Figure 9. Overview of the unstable slope that backs the swim beach; view east.

Figure 10. Overview of the beach, looking south, showing the concrete retaining wall and volleyball area on the left edge of the image.



Figure 11. Relatively gentle slope down to the water’s edge from the restroom area, general location of SP-6.

Figure 12. SP-6 area with natural beach in the foreground and swim beach in the background; view south.



Figure 13. Overview of the swim beach from SP-2; view north.

Figure 14. SP-1 at 150 cmbs showing thick fill deposits overlying natural beach sediment.



Figure 15. SP-2 at 100 cmbs showing soil formed in beds of fill.

Figure 16. SP-4 at 90 cmbs showing soil formed in beds of fill.



Figure 17. SP-5 at 105 cmbs showing soil formed in fill overlying disturbed beach sediments.

Figure 18. SP-6 at 120 cmbs showing glacial till used as fill overlying older beach deposits.



Figure 19. SP-7 at 145 cmbs showing fill overlying glacial outwash.

Figure 20. SP-8 at 160 cmbs showing fill overlying glacial outwash.



Figure 21. Naturally deposited sediments collected from the base of SP-1 below 105 cmbs.



ATTACHMENT A: Shovel Probe and Geotechnical Borehole Summary



Table A-1. Shovel Probe Summary

SP NO.

UTM (Zone 10N, NAD83) STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION (cm below surface)

CULTURAL MATERIAL NORTHING EASTING

1 5266661 557557 0-5: Gray, fine to coarse sand mixed with leaves, twigs, roots and organic debris; recent fill.

None

5-18: Dark brown, organic-rich, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse sand; gravels are few to common, sub-angular to rounded, very small to very large pebbles; many roots and organic debris; clear lower boundary; modern O/A horizon formed in fill.

None

18-46: Light brown, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common to many, sub-rounded to rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; many, small to large tree roots; clear to gradual lower boundary; B horizon formed in fill.

None

46-105: Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are few, sub-angular to rounded, very small to large pebbles; common to many, small to large tree roots that decrease with depth; large piece of natural wood between 65 and 80 cmbs; abrupt to clear lower boundary; local fill or disturbed beach. * Began augering at 80 cmbs due to wood.

None

105-150: Brownish gray, bedded very silty, fine sand and silty, fine to coarse sand with many small organic fibers, debris, and common rootlets; nearshore lake sediments. * Terminated probe in lake sediments.

None

2 5266680 557571 0-30: Gray, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand; gravels are common, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to small pebbles; few to common rootlets near surface; abrupt, smooth lower boundary; fill.

None

30-50: Dark grayish brown, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand with trace of silt; gravels are common to many, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to small pebbles; common small to large tree roots or sticks; abrupt, wavy lower boundary; buried A/B horizon formed in fill.

None

50-73: Salt and pepper-colored (white and dark gray), gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are many, sub-angular to rounded, very small to medium pebbles; abrupt, smooth lower boundary; disturbed beach or local fill.

None

73-80: Brown, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand with slightly organic-rich matrix; gravels are common, sub-angular to rounded, very small to small pebbles; common to many sticks and roots with smaller woody debris; abrupt to clear lower boundary; buried surface of old beach.

None

80-100: Gray, fine to coarse sand with very few, sub-rounded, very small pebbles; beach. * Terminated probe on large rock.

None

3 5266696 557587 0-13: Brownish gray, slightly silty, fine to coarse sand with few small roots; disturbed; clear, smooth lower boundary; modern A horizon.

None

13-25: Light grayish brown, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common, angular to sub-rounded, small to large pebbles and large cobbles; few scattered woody debris; disturbed; clear lower boundary dipping southwest; disturbed; modern B horizon.

None

25-35: Light yellowish gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common to many, angular to sub-rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; compact; bladed upper boundary; abrupt lower boundary dipping southwest; truncated C horizon in glacial outwash. * Terminated probe in compact, glacial sediments.

None

4 5266710 557601 0-16: Grayish brown, silty, fine to coarse sand with very few, angular to sub-rounded, very small to small pebbles; common, small grass roots; clear, smooth lower boundary; modern A horizon formed in fill.

None

16-25: Salt and pepper-colored (white and dark grayish brown), gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are many, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small pebbles; loose; abrupt, smooth lower boundary; fill.

16-25: One small, brown bottle glass fragment




SP NO.



25-32: Brown, silty, fine to coarse sand; organic-rich matrix; compact; abrupt, smooth lower boundary; buried surface within fill.

None

32-47: Salt and pepper-colored (white and dark gray), gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are common, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to small pebbles; clear lower boundary; fill.

None

47-75: Light gray, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are few to common, angular to sub-rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; compact; number and size of gravels increases with depth; gradual lower boundary; old beach, possibly partially disturbed. * Began augering at 60 cmbs.

None

75-90: Very light gray, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are common, sub-angular to sub-rounded, small to very large pebbles; wet; old beach, undisturbed. * Terminated probe on obstructing cobbles at 90 cmbs.

None

5 5266725 557615 0-20: Brownish gray, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse sand; gravels are few, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to medium pebbles; common to many rootlets; clear, wavy lower boundary; modern A horizon in fill.

None

20-35: Yellowish gray, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand; gravels are very few to few, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to small pebbles; abrupt to clear, wavy lower boundary; B horizon formed in fill.

None

35-40: Grayish brown to pale brown, very fine to medium sand with very few, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small pebbles; common rootlets and fine roots and few organic debris; abrupt to clear, wavy lower boundary; surface in beach, possibly disturbed.

None

40-105: Gray to light brownish gray, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are common to many, sub-angular to rounded, very small pebbles to large cobbles; few roots; may be faintly bedded, with finer 10cm-thick bed at 90 cmbs; water at 95 cmbs; beach, possibly disturbed. * Terminated probe due to depth; cobbles prevented augering.

None

6 5266740 557627 0-22: Gray to light brown, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common, sub-angular to rounded, very small to small pebbles; many rootlets; clear, smooth lower boundary dipping northwest; fill.

None

22-75: Mottled brown and gray, mixed silty, gravelly, fine to coarse sand and very silty, fine sand; gravels are few to common, sub-angular to rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; few silt rip-ups; scattered woody debris and common rootlets; scattered charcoal; color becomes more gray with depth; clear lower boundary dipping to northwest; till used as fill.

20-40: Two fragments of hard plastic 40-60: One fragment of red, hard plastic

75-120: Gray, bedded silty, fine sand and very gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are sub-angular to rounded, very small to large pebbles; large, burned natural wood at upper contact from 70-80 cmbs; few organic and woody debris above 85 cmbs; water at 100 cmbs; old beach. * Began augering at 100 cmbs. * Terminated probe due to depth and lack of cultural material.

None

7 5266703 557612 0-13: Dark brownish gray, fine to coarse sandy, silt with many small to medium roots and leaf litter; loose; clear, wavy lower boundary; modern A horizon formed in fill.

None

13-45: Gray, slightly clayey, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are common, angular to sub-rounded, very small to medium pebbles; mechanically compacted; clear lower boundary; till used as fill for road.

None

45-64: Gray, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common to many, angular to sub-rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; few scattered, small woody debris; clear, smooth lower boundary; disturbed outwash or outwash used as fill. * Began augering at 55 cmbs.

None




SP NO.



64-145: Light yellowish brown, medium to coarse sand with few, small rootlets between 64 and 70 cmbs; one bed of gray clay at 115 cmbs in water table; glacial outwash. * Terminated probe in sterile glacial sediments.

None

8 5266683 557592 0-17: Dark brownish gray, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common, sub-angular to rounded, very small pebbles to large cobbles; many rootlets; layer of cobbles and larger pebbles near lower boundary; abrupt, wavy lower boundary; modern A horizon in fill.

None

17-160: Light brown and grayish brown, fine to coarse sand with very few, sub-angular to sub-rounded, very small to medium pebbles; faintly bedded finer and coarser; becomes compact below 60 cmbs; more compact with depth; water seems perched between 20 and 50 cmbs; truncated glacial outwash. * Began augering at 100 cmbs. * Terminated probe in sterile glacial sediments.

None



Table A-1. Borehole Summary

BORING NO.

UTM (Zone 10N, NAD83) STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION (m below surface)

INTERPRETATION

NORTHING EASTING

B-1 5266675 557566 0-1.98: Gray, silty, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand with common large tree roots and organic debris; gravels are very small to small pebbles; very compact; moist; organics decrease with depth; grades to moderately compact with depth.

Glacial Outwash

1.98-5.33: Gray, silty, fine to coarse sand; moderately compact; wet; grades to brown in color near 3.05 m (10 fbs).

Glacial Outwash

5.33-9.14: Gray, silty, gravelly, fine to very coarse sand; gravels are very small to small pebbles; moderately compact; wet.

Glacial Outwash

9.14-15.7: Grayish brown, silty, fine to coarse sand; experienced heave; very compact; wet; locally compact to very compact below 1100 cmbs.

Glacial Outwash

B-2 5266699 557586 0-0.15: Sod on loose, moist topsoil. Soil

0.15-5.33: Gray, gravelly, silty, fine to very coarse sand; gravels are very small to small pebbles; moderately compact; moist; becomes brownish gray at 168 cmbs; becomes wet at 305 cmbs.

Glacial Outwash

5.33-6.86: Brown, silty, fine to medium sand; compact; wet. Glacial Outwash

6.86-8.38: Brown, silty, fine to coarse sand; compact; wet. Glacial Outwash


9.90-11.43: Brown, silty, fine to coarse sand; compact; wet. Glacial Outwash


12.95-15.7: Brown, silty, fine to coarse sand; very compact; wet. Glacial Outwash



ATTACHMENT B: Tribal Correspondence

Tel: 206 781 1909 x6703Fax: 206 781 0154Email: [email protected]

January 19, 2016

Ms. Cecile Hansen, ChairwomanDuwamish Tribe4705 W. Marginal Way S.W.Seattle, Washington 98106 1514

Dear Ms. Hansen,

Mercer Island Parks and Recreation proposes an over the water floating structure surrounding theirexisting swimming area at Groveland Park in King County, Washington (Figure 1). Landscape ArchitectRobert Droll has planned this structure and retained SWCA Environmental consultants to conduct acultural resources assessment for the project. The proposed over the water structure will connect toMercer Island at two points, both of which are already developed with docks.

SWCA has initiated background research on the natural and cultural setting of the project area. We willconduct a pedestrian and shovel probe survey of the project area on Tuesday, January 28, 2016. Shovelprobes will be excavated where project ground disturbance is planned. We do not expect to encountersignificant cultural resources in the probes based on the development history of the project area andthe lowering of Lake Washington in 1916.

At this time SWCA would like to know if the Duwamish Tribe has any concerns or information aboutcultural resources in or near Groveland Park. If so, please contact me at your earliest convenience sothese locations can be taken into account during our cultural resources assessment. We respectconcerns the Duwamish Tribe may have about sharing sensitive information with us and I will be happyto work with you regarding these interests.

Please let me know if you or your staff would like to observe the field survey. The survey results will bepresented in a short report and Mercer Island Parks and Recreation will send you a copy when it iscomplete.

SWCA looks forward to hearing from you. Feel free to e mail or call with any questions you might haveabout this project.

Sincerely,

Brandy A. Rinck, M.A., RPA


January 19, 2016

Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Cultural ResourcesMuckleshoot Indian Tribe39015 172nd Ave SEAuburn, Washington 98092

Submitted by e mail to [email protected].

Dear Ms. Murphy,



At this time SWCA would like to know if the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has any concerns or informationabout cultural resources in or near Groveland Park. If so, please contact me at your earliest convenienceso these locations can be taken into account during our cultural resources assessment. We respectconcerns the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe may have about sharing sensitive information with us and I willbe happy to work with you regarding these interests.



Sincerely,



January 19, 2016

Steve Mullen Moses, Director of Archaeology and Historic PreservationSnoqualmie Nation8130 Railroad Avenue, Suite 103Snoqualmie, Washington 98065

Submitted by e mail to [email protected] [email protected].

Dear Mr. Mullen Moses,



At this time SWCA would like to know if the Snoqualmie Nation has any concerns or information aboutcultural resources in or near Groveland Park. If so, please contact me at your earliest convenience sothese locations can be taken into account during our cultural resources assessment. We respectconcerns the Snoqualmie Nation may have about sharing sensitive information with us and I will behappy to work with you regarding these interests.



Sincerely,



January 19, 2016

Dennis Lewarch, THPOSuquamish TribePO Box 498Suquamish, Washington 98392 0498

Submitted by e mail to [email protected].

Dear Mr. Lewarch,



At this time SWCA would like to know if the Suquamish Tribe has any concerns or information aboutcultural resources in or near Groveland Park. If so, please contact me at your earliest convenience sothese locations can be taken into account during our cultural resources assessment. We respectconcerns the Suquamish Tribe may have about sharing sensitive information with us and I will be happyto work with you regarding these interests.



Sincerely,


draft cra for groveland park - mercer island 5feb16 and sep17...pleistocene (booth et al. 2004). the...

Documents