Attachment_1_Statement_of_Work.pdf

Ross Lake Archeological Services North Cascades NPS Complex Attachment 1: Statement of Work

Archeological Data Recovery Excavation in Ross Lake Reservoir at 45WH262 N. Lightning Creek #4, 45WH262 Devil’s Junction Creek #2, and National Register evaluation of 45WH441 South East Landing #2

I. Background Information North Cascades National Park Service Complex (NOCA) will hire a contractor to conduct studies of three pre-contact age archeological sites in the drawdown of Ross Lake:

• Data-recovery-scale excavation of two (2) sites, and

• Subsurface testing for the National Register of Historic Places evaluation of one (1) site.

This work is authorized by the 1991 settlement agreements entered into by the City of Seattle (City) and the National Park Service (NPS) to meet licensing requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and NPS cultural resources management policies as these relate to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its amendments.

There is no direct car access to any of the sites and access logistics are challenging. Sites 45WH268, 45WH262, and 45WH441 are reached via State Route 20 from the south, and then via watercraft from the southern end of the reservoir at Ross Dam, north ca. 10-20 miles to the sites.

While there is not practical overland access for sites 45WH268 and 45WH262, site 45CA441 may potentially be accessed through British Columbia. Refer to map in Appendix 4.

Archeological site 45WH268 is listed as a contributing property to the Upper Skagit River Valley Archeological District DT212. It is located at ca. 1550 ft elevation on a small rocky bench at the base of a steep valley wall along the north bank of Lightning Creek. Two dates were acquired from the site including 1,760+/- 80 radiocarbon years B.P. from a piece of charcoal and the collection of a Cascade projectile point. The site appears to have functioned as a place for processing locally available resources on an intermittent basis.

Site 45WH262, Devil’s Junction Creek #2, is also a contributing property to the Upper Skagit River Valley Archeological District. It is situated on a terrace between two bedrock outcrops near Devil’s Creek at an elevation of 1570ft. This high-density lithic scatter is unique for having a large number (n=52) of middle to late stage bifaces and biface thinning flakes. These artifacts suggest that the site functioned as a biface production workshop. A Cascade projectile point and single radiocarbon date of 1,760 +/- 80 years roughly date this site between 4,000 and 1,000 years B.P.

Archeological site 45WH441 was recommended as ineligible for listing in the Upper Skagit River Valley Archeological District based on visual inspection during the initial Skagit Hydroelectric Project archeological inventory in 1988-90 (Mierendorf et al. 1998). It is located at 1540 ft.

elevation along the south bank of an old stream channel. Numerous pieces of chipped stone as well as some calcined bone was observed on the surface. The site was described as being heavily disturbed by logging. Test excavations are needed to evaluate the integrity of site deposits and to confirm or deny the original National Register of Historic Places assessment.

The sites 45WH268 and 45WH262 are recommended for data recovery in the Archeological

Resources Mitigation and Management Plan for Ross Lake (Schalk et al. 2011). The eligibility of site 45WH441 needs to be determined prior to an upcoming project proposed by the City. It is tentatively estimated that the drawdown of Ross Lake reservoir in the spring of 2016 will be moderate which may result in a limited period of time to access to the sites.

II. Description of Project Area The project area is located in Ross Lake National Recreation Area, eastern Whatcom County, Washington, on lands managed by NPS. Legal location of site 45WH268 is in T. 39 N., R. 14 E., NE ¼ of Sec. 7; site 45WH262 is in T. 39 N., R. 14 E., NE ¼ of Sec. 30; and site 45WH441 is in T.

40 N., R. 13 E., SW ¼ of Sec. 11. Ross Lake is remote and lacks road access in the south and cell phone service; however, there is good GPS coverage in the project area. The immediate project setting consists of the unvegetated reservoir bottom (“drawdown zone”) where reservoir sediments and eroded soils are exposed to air during annual lowering of the reservoir level. Full pool elevation of the reservoir is 1602.5 feet above sea level (asl) and the site elevations are ca. 1540, 1570, and 1550 ft asl. Because the drawdown of Ross Lake reservoir is related to mountain snowpack, the amount of time and exact dates the three archeological sites will be exposed cannot be predicted.

The real time and historical elevations of Ross Lake are accessible on-line at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/uv?format=gif&period=7&site_no=12175000 and Appendix 1 shows the drawdown levels over the last four years.

There is no simple and direct vehicle access to the sites. State Route 20 provides access to points east of the City of Seattle town of Diablo, from which two alternative boat routes provide access to Ross Lake and the sites. One route is from the Ross Lake trailhead at milepost 134, down a moderately steep one-mile hiking and pack trail to Ross Dam, the reservoir, and boat access. Travel time (driving and hiking) from Marblemount to the reservoir is around 1.5 hrs. A recommended alternative route is to drive to the City’s boathouse on Diablo Lake and to hire the City to transport people and gear to the Ross Dam barge landing. The access road across Diablo Dam is restricted to 7:30 am -4:15 pm, but regardless of the time of day, you can exit the gate from the lake side.

From barge landing hire Ross Lake Resort to drive you to Ross reservoir along the 2 mile long gravel haul road to boat access. Via this route, travel time from Marblemount to the reservoir is just over two hours. Boat travel time from the Ross dam to site 45WH262 is 30 minutes with an additional 10 minutes to 45WH268. If the reservoir level allows, site 45WH441 is 15-20 minutes further in a boat. Although camping is not allowed in the drawdown zone, established NPS campgrounds (equipped with fire-rings, tent pads, picnic tables, and vault toilets) are available for use by work crews for purposes of implementing the contract. There is no NPS fee to camp in a Ross Lake campsite, but a free backcountry camping permit is required and can be obtained at the Marblemount Ranger Station prior to each field visit. The effective work period within the reservoir drawdown is normally early April to late May.

The contractor is solely responsible for transportation and access to the project area and the site during project work. A motorboat can be launched on Ross Lake, but only if it is small enough to be lifted by hand onto the flatbed truck, driven to Ross Lake, and then removed and launched by the same method. Travel by motorboat can be challenging during the drawdown due to the exposure of http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/uv?format=gif&period=7&site_no=12175000 uncut trees and stumps in the reservoir that can damage boats. Contractors may rent watercraft from Ross Lake Resort who can be contacted at 206-386-4437. Although Ross Lake Resort is not open for regular business during the spring drawdown, in past projects they have assisted in transportation of crew and gear on Ross Lake for a reasonable fee. To inquire about pricing and scheduling barge trips on Diablo Lake, contact City employee Al Ferrara at 206-727-3751.

Direct boat access to site 45WH441 from the northern part of Ross Lake may be infeasible due to lowered reservoir levels. The contractor may need to travel by foot with all equipment from the furthest point north that a boat can safely travel on Ross Lake. Depending on reservoir levels, this could be many miles on foot. Alternatively, if the roads are not closed due to snow, it may be possible to access site 45WH441 from British Columbia, Canada, rather than from Ross Lake. This requires traveling along Trans Canada 1 through the Fraser River valley to the town of Hope, B.C., then proceeding for ca. 45 miles along the Silverhope-Klesilkwa Rd. to re-enter the U.S. and the northern end of Ross Lake at Hozomeen. The closest town to the project area is Hope, B.C., which provides the nearest services, including gasoline, hardware, grocery, and emergency medical services. The NPS has no control over whether or not B.C. opens the northern access.

Although the drawdown zone and Hozomeen Campground are closed to public access for most of the spring, the NPS will provide the contractor work crews access to roads and campsites at Hozomeen Campground solely for purposes of implementing the contract. Recreational vehicle (RV) and tent camping is allowed at Hozomeen, but there are no electrical hook-ups or telephones. Drinking water is only available from local streams (or brought in) until the campground water system is de-winterized, but a date for this cannot be specified. Vault toilets are available near all designated campsites. The contractor is responsible for carrying out garbage and adhering to posted campground rules. Also, the NPS advises the contractor that bears are attracted to improperly handled food (and scented products, such as deodorants, toothpaste, etc) and all such items shall be stored in bear-proof containers, such as vehicles or in metal bear boxes; several of the latter are located in the lower loop campsites at Hozomeen Campground.

III. Background on Previous Archeological Studies In the late 1980s, NPS and the City began to address cultural resource management issues in the upper Skagit River valley in anticipation of requirements for the City’s upcoming application for a license by FERC to operate the Skagit Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 553). Working cooperatively beginning in 1988, the NPS and the City conducted archeological surveys and test excavations, resulting in the recording of over 150 archeological sites within the licensed project area. A final report documenting these investigations, including a National Register eligibility recommendation that 16 of the sites be listed as contributing properties to the Upper Skagit River Valley Archeological District, was published by NPS in 1998 (Mierendorf et. al. 1998). Following the concurrence of the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish through tribal council resolutions, the archeological district Determination of Eligibility (DoE) was signed by approving officials in 2004 (National Park Service 2004). Subsequently, and in cooperation with NPS, the

City contracted for the preparation of a detailed draft management plan for the 16 contributing properties. After review of the draft by the three Skagit tribes, slight revisions were made (Schalk et

al. 2011). This statement of work follows the treatment guidelines recommended in the revised 2011 plan for site 45WH268 (see Appendix 2) and 45WH262 (see Appendix 3).

Mierendorf et al. (1998) provides the results of test excavations at sites 45WH268 and 45WH262.

Additionally, overview information for the pre-contact history, environment, and archeology of the project area for all of the sites is detailed in Mierendorf (2004). Mierendorf et al. (1998) lists research themes and data categories contributing to the significance of sites 45WH268 and 45WH262. Thirty-nine sites have been tested and evaluated thus far within the Ross Lake draw down (Mierendorf et al. 1998 and Mierendorf et al. 2013). Data recovery reports on six of the 16 contributing properties previously excavated pursuant to the management plan are available in electronic format (Iversen et al. 2012, 2013; Bush et al. 2007, 2008, and 2009). No additional information is known about site 45WH441 other than what is provided on the original site form available at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The site form states that it appears to have been heavily disturbed by logging construction (Forrest 1989). It has not known to have been formally revisited since it was recorded in 1989. Annual exposure of sites to the erosive effects of reservoir shoreline processes may have altered site conditions since original identification and/or field testing between 1988 and 1990.

No pre-contact period human burials, gravesites, ceremonial features, or sacred objects have been recorded or reported in the project area during previous investigations.

IV. Contractor Services Required

1. Field Methods.

45WH268 and 45WH262

The contractor shall employ surface mapping of artifacts (including collection of formed or culturally and chronologically-sensitive types), site mapping, excavation of shovel or test probes, excavation of stratigraphy trenches and pits, and full-scale excavation using 1x1 and 2x2 m square excavation units, as needed to perform data recovery. Detailed recommendations for treatment of 45WH268 and 45WH262 are provided in the Individual Site Recovery Plans section of the management plan prepared by Schalk et al. (2011) and are to be used as a guide for implementing data recovery. The individual data recovery plans for sites 45WH268 and 45WH262 are in Appendices 2 and 3.

Due to the length of time that has transpired since the sites were tested, it is highly recommended to begin data recovery by performing an intensive surface re-survey and limited test probing in order to 1) confirm each site’s datum and collect data to prepare final plan view site maps, 2) locate and empty the test units at each site to preview each site’s sediments, and 3) based on this and other information about site conditions, develop and implement a data recovery strategy. There is no specific stated requirement as to size or shape of subsurface probes, although screen mesh size must be no larger than ¼”. The contractor shall combine the initial testing data (Mierendorf et. al. 1998) with the new data recovered pursuant to this contract when preparing the final report of results.

A map of the current site perimeter with the area to be tested is available at the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation website’s online database in Mierendorf et

al. 1998. In the event that either site is found to be larger than mapped, the contractor is not expected to test areas outside the site’s perimeter. The contract price is “lump sum” for the project, so the amount of time and effort the contractor expends to complete the work will depend in large part on the nature and quantity of artifacts and features excavated.

The contractor’s test excavations shall adhere to standard field techniques. Screen all excavated sediments through 1/8" mesh unless conditions compel the use of a larger mesh opening.

Excavation will be by arbitrary (10 cm) or natural levels, or both, with level forms completed for each excavation level. Artifact provenience shall be recorded by unit, level, and 3-coordinate provenience from a unit datum for intact formed artifacts/diagnostics and features. Because intact features are rare in the drawdown, it is important to carefully excavate and document any such features encountered.

45WH441

The fieldwork objective at this archeological site is to gather enough data to determine whether the site is eligible or ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This site is not specifically addressed in Mierendorf et al. 1998 or Schalk et al. 2011. A sketch map of site 45WH441 has not been drawn although the original site forms states that the site is 22m N/S by 10m E/W for a total estimated area of 220 m2.

Due to the length of time that has passed since the site was last visited, the contractor shall begin the evaluation of the site by conducting an intensive surface resurvey, mapping of artifacts (including collection of formed or culturally and chronologically-sensitive types), and mapping of topography using a GPS. Perform limited test probing in order to determine the site boundary, horizontal and vertical extent, volume of cultural bearing deposits, and to inform the placement of two test units.

Systematically place no more than 12 and no fewer than 8 shovel probes across the site. There is no specific stated requirement as to size or shape of subsurface probes, although screen mesh size must be at least ¼”.

Based on the results of the shovel probes, excavate two 1x1 meter test units for a total volume of

1.25 - 1.50m3. While the depth of deposits at this site is unknown, sites tested thus far in the Ross Lake reservoir have typically yielded cultural deposits much shallower than 1 meter below the surface. If cultural bearing deposits prove to be shallow, you may excavate a third 1x1 meter test unit to achieve the volume goals. The contractor’s test excavations shall adhere to standard field techniques. Screen all excavated sediments through 1/4" mesh. Excavation will be by arbitrary (10

cm) or natural levels, or both, with level forms completed for each excavation level. Artifact provenience shall be recorded by unit, level, and 3-coordinate provenience from a unit datum for intact formed artifacts/diagnostics and features. Because intact features are rare in the drawdown, it is important to carefully excavate and document any such features encountered. See Mierendorf et

al. 2013 for a recent example of site testing and evaluation in the Ross Lake reservoir.

The following field methods apply to all archeological sites.

The contractor shall photographically document excavation units using digital camera technology.

Record digital images for all completed levels, of all intact features during excavation, of completed test unit walls and floors, and of wall profiles in stratigraphy units. The contractor shall create a detailed stratigraphic diagram showing soil or stratigraphic layers, volcanic ash layers, cultural layers, feature boundaries, radiocarbon sample locations, sediment or feature sample locations, locations of key artifacts, and other meaningful characteristics for at least one wall of each excavation unit.

The contractor shall prepare a final planview site map showing the location of all excavation units, diagnostic artifacts and features, site datum, contour elevation lines, important geographic features, and other natural and modern cultural features and objects within the site boundaries.

2. Laboratory Methods. The contractor shall employ standard laboratory and analytic techniques used to describe, identify, and classify archeological collections. The contractor shall prepare an inventory of all artifacts recovered from excavation units, their provenience, class or artifact category, age assessment, and context (in situ, surface, or disturbed). Special laboratory analyses may be required, including X-ray fluorescence sourcing of obsidian or fine-grained volcanic artifacts; thin-section and identification of tool stone types; radiocarbon dating of charcoal, bone, or other organic materials; taxonomic identification of charred plant and animal remains; identification of volcanic ash samples; and others, as appropriate. These types of analyses will be allowed only after approval by the Contracting Officer; see Section V, Laboratory Analysis, for additional information.

3. Personnel. The contractor is strongly encouraged to seek qualified field workers among members of the three Skagit River tribes, to the extent possible. At the contractor’s request, NPS staff will provide contact information for each of the tribes, which include the Sauk-Suiattle, Swinomish, and Upper Skagit. It is important to note that contractor’s contacts with tribal governments are not for the purpose of, or in place of, lead agency consultation or project review;

these activities shall be conducted by NPS under the park superintendent’s designated authority.

4. Human remains, ceremonial features, and sacred objects. In the unlikely event that human bones, gravesites, ceremonial features, or sacred objects are encountered during the investigations, the contractor shall immediately cease work, protect the area and secure it from any disturbance, and notify the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COR) or the Park's Chief of Resource Management. NPS, not the contractor, shall consult with the affected Native American governments.

5. Curation. All artifact collections generated by implementation of this project will be permanently accessioned and curated by NOCA at the NPS Marblemount Curation Facility, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Marblemount, WA. In addition, all original documents created as part of the project, including records, photographs, field notes, maps (including GIS layers), and catalog lists will be accessioned and archived at the same facility. The park will provide the contractor an electronic template in Microsoft Excel for recording data on catalogued collections. The contractor shall not place any permanent markings or labels directly on artifact surfaces.

6. Scheduling Fieldwork. Fieldwork should begin as soon as weather and reservoir conditions permit, as determined by consultation between the contractor and COR. However, fieldwork must not occur prior to the pre-work meeting between the park’s staff and the contractor. This meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible after award of the contract in order to expedite early project implementation. Because the reservoir level begins to rise about mid-April, fieldwork should begin no later than mid-April, 2016, unless precluded by unanticipated adverse conditions. All fieldwork shall be completed by June 30, 2016.

If at any time during the field season the reservoir level reaches or exceeds the elevations of the sites listed in Section II and field work is suspended by the Contracting Officer, an equitable adjustment will be made to the contract unit price.

7. Reporting Requirements

a. Draft Determination of Eligibility (DoE) for site 45WH441 If archeological testing at site 45WH441 results in the contractor confirming the Mierendorf et al.

1998 recommendation that the site is ineligible for listing on the National Register, then the contractor will complete NPS Form 10-900 (National Register of Historic Places Registration Form) substantiating the findings following guidance provided in National Register Bulletins 15 and 36. Results and interpretation of testing site 45WH441 will also be detailed in the main report and the completion of this form should not be considered fulfillment of the reporting requirements for this site. The draft shall be submitted to the COR as soon as is reasonably possible but no later than July 11, 2016 via email in Microsoft Word. The NPS will submit comments, if any, to the Contractor via email by July 18, 2016.

b. Final DoE for site 45WH441 The final DoE form substantiating the ineligibly of site 45WH441 shall be submitted to the COR as soon as is reasonably possible, but no later than July 25, 2016 via email in Microsoft Word. It will consider, and incorporate as deemed necessary, the written review comments. The COR and the Contractor will usually agree upon all changes to be made.

However, if testing finds that the site is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, then reporting requirements a. and b. are not required.

c. Progress Report No later than 90 days after ending the field phase of the project, the contractor shall provide a progress report summarizing the substantive results of the fieldwork. It shall include mention of any problems encountered or factors affecting performance of contract services. Photographs and diagrams are not necessary. Because laboratory analysis is not likely to be completed by this time, a report of 8-15 pages in length will be sufficient, although a more complete report will be acceptable.

The progress report may be submitted via email or by mailing five (5) paper copies to the COR; it is due no later than September 26, 2016.

d. Draft Final Report For review purposes, five bound copies (5) of a draft final report and one electronic version in Microsoft Word 2010 (or compatible) or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) shall be submitted to the COR by November 28, 2016. The draft shall include all proposed maps, illustrations, appendices, as well as complete references. The draft will be subject to NPS management staff and tribal review. NPS will submit all review comments to the Contractor in an agreed upon format by January 9, 2017.

e. Final Report Submit one final original hard copy of the report, along with eight (8) bound printed copies and a complete electronic version on a CD in Adobe PDF. The final report shall be sent to the COR by February 6, 2017. It will consider, and incorporate as deemed necessary, the written review comments. The COR and the Contractor will usually agree upon all changes to be made.

The report shall document in detail the results of all archeological activities performed under the contract. Laboratory and field methods must be clearly described and their results clearly presented, along with archeological interpretations of the data that address the sites’ research themes and scientific and archeological contributions to understanding local and state pre-contact history.

It shall include the inventory, stratigraphic diagrams, and planview site map described in Field Methods.

Submit all digital information collected over the course of the project to the NPS on a CD with the final report. This CD should include, but is not limited to, all digital photographs, artifact tables, and GIS data such as location of test units, shovel probes, and site boundaries in ESRI ArcGIS10 format.

The final report shall synthesize all site information and to the extent possible, discuss the sites’ local and regional context and any contributions that it makes to understanding use of the montane environment. The contractor is encouraged to study all earlier collections from sites 45WH268 and 45WH262, and to combine these earlier data with the new data during synthesis, in order to address research contexts.

The final report shall adhere to conventional archeological reporting standards for testing and data recovery efforts, including but not limited to:

1) Title page (title, contract number, report preparer, agency report submitted to, date, etc.)

2) Table of contents, abstract

3) Statement of goals and purposes

4) Description of research methodology

5) Description of results for all three sites

a. results of any radiocarbon analyses

b. results of all other special analyses (e.g., tephra source identification, etc.)

c. description of artifact classes or categories, and features

d. inferred function of artifacts and features

e. address local and regional research issues using project results

6) Statement of site condition and factors affecting the sites, present and past

7) Discussion of National Register eligibility (site 45WH441 only)

8) Summary tables and diagrams, maps, and photographs to display results. If necessary, as determined by the contractor, detailed data tables can be presented in appendices

9) Updated archeological site forms in appendices and submitted to DAHP

10) References cited

11) Report style shall adhere to the main elements of American Antiquity style guide, the most current version of which is available on-line.

V. Laboratory Analysis Because the type(s) and scope of specific laboratory analyses are unknown before excavation takes place, offerors shall identify proposed analyses with their specific unit costs in their offer. Previous studies of park archeological sites have provided typological and functional analysis of lithic assemblages, the radiocarbon age of organic remains (nearly always charcoal), source identification of primary volcanic ash layers, identification of fragmented faunal remains (occasionally), source identification of obsidian, FGVs, and other toolstone types from lithic assemblages, and blood and protein residue on stone tools. If/when specific laboratory analyses are approved by the Contracting Officer (CO), s/he will issue a contract modification to add the tests and funds. The contractor shall not proceed with laboratory analysis until receiving a written modification from the CO.

VI. Schedule Field work Mid-April to June 30, 2016 Draft DoE for 45WH441 to NPS As soon as possible, no later than July

11, 2016* NPS comments to contractor on draft DoE 45WH441 July 18, 2016* Final DoE for 45WH441 to NPS July 25, 2016* Progress report to NPS 90 days after completion of field work; no later than Sept. 26, 2016 Draft final report to NPS November 28, 2016 NPS comments to contractor January 9, 2017 Final report to NPS February 6, 2017

*These deadlines are only applicable if testing at site 45WH441 has found the site to be ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. If site is found to be eligible, these deadlines are void.

VII. References

Bush, Kelly R., Jacquelyn C. Ferry, and J. A. and J. Tait Elder 2007 Final Report: Ross Lake Archaeological Data Recovery Project: 45WH234 and 45WH303, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International Inc., Concrete, Wa., and submitted to the National Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Bush, Kelly R., Tamela Smart, and Brett N. Meidinger 2008 Final Report: Ross Lake Archaeological Data Recovery Project: 45WH239, North

Cascades NPS Complex, Ross Lake, Washington. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International Inc., Concrete, Wa., and submitted to the National Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Bush, Kelly R., Brette N. Meidinger, and Anne Peebles 2009 Final Report: Ross Lake Archaeological Data Recovery Project: 45WH241, North

Cascades NPS Complex, Ross Lake, Washington. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International Inc., Concrete, Wa., and submitted to the National Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Forrest, J.H.

1989 45WH411, South East Landing #2 (FS 171). Site form on file with the Department of

Archeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Wa.

Iversen, David R., Nicholas J. Smith, Tucker O. Orvald, and Mark S. Becker 2013 Data Recovery at 45WH255, Ross Lake Reservoir, North Cascades National Park, Whatcom County, Washington. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Stanwood, Washington, and submitted to the National Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa

Iversen, David R., Tucker O. Orvald, and Mark S. Becker 2012 Data Recovery at 45WH253, Ross Lake Reservoir, North Cascades National Park, Whatcom County, Washington. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Stanwood, Washington, and submitted to the National Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Mierendorf, Robert R.

2004 Archeology of the Little Beaver Watershed, North Cascades National Park Service

Complex, Whatcom County, Washington. Report prepared for the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission in fulfillment of Grant 02-01, by North Cascades National Park

Service Complex, U.S. Department of Interior, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Mierendorf, Robert R., Jacqueline Y. Cheung and Eric B. Gleason 2013 Archaeological Site Monitoring and Evaluation, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, 2008 to 2011, North Cascades National Park, Whatcom County, Washington. North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Wa.

Mierendorf, Robert R., David J. Harry, and Gregg Sullivan 1998 An Archaeological Site Survey and Evaluation in the Upper Skagit River Valley, Whatcom

County, Washington. Technical Report NPS/CCCNOCA/CRTR-98/01. Submitted to City Of Seattle, City Light Department, by the National Park Service, Columbia-Cascade Support System Office, Seattle.

National Park Service 2004 Upper Skagit River Valley Archeological District, Determination of Eligibility Form, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Wa.

Schalk, Randall, Carolyn D. Dillian, Robert R. Mierendorf, and Beth Blattenberger 2011 Archaeological Resources Mitigation and Management Plan for Ross Lake. Draft report prepared for City of Seattle, Seattle City Light by International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (Amended July 2013).

Appendix 1: Summary of Ross Lake drawdown levels for the last four years.

Appendix 2: Data Recovery Plan for site 45WH268 N. Lightning Creek #4 from Schalk et

al. 2011.

5.4.8.1 Significance and Data Requirements

This small task-specific site is believed to have been used for processing of a locally obtained resource. Its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places derives from its potential to yield information relating to subsistence, settlement, chronology, and past climates.

As a task-specific location that apparently does not contain faunal remains, subsistence data will be derived primarily from functional analyses of the stone tools it contains. The kinds of tool uses represented (e.g., cutting, piercing, scraping, pounding) provide clues regarding the activities conducted and possibly the resources processed. Through the application of laboratory techniques such as blood-residue analysis to specific stone tools, it may also be possible to identify the kinds of resources that were processed.

Elucidation of the site’s age, artifact-assemblage characteristics and environmental setting are each of relevance to understanding its role in a settlement subsistence. Insights into the relationship of this site to others of comparable age should derive from quantitative comparisons of assemblages from this and other sites in the region.

Chronological data of two varieties should be obtained during data recovery. Charcoal is preserved in the site deposits and this material should be collected for radiometric dates. Both cultural and non-cultural samples can be useful for this purpose. A second source of chronological data are temporally diagnostic artifacts; a projectile point found during testing suggests the potential for recovery of additional specimens during data recovery.

Data pertaining to the past-climates research domain are expected to be recoverable from two sources. The first source is the charcoal present in the site deposits. Charcoal should be collected for analysis by a paleobotanist because whether the plant remains represented are either fuel woods or edible vegetal resources, these have potential to be informative about the environmental setting of the site vicinity in the past. The second source of data on past climates is geological. Field descriptions of soil and sedimentary characteristics of the site deposits can be undertaken to confirm or reject mass wasting as the agent of deposition at this site. If this is in fact the process by which the deposits at this site accumulated, then it must have taken place within roughly the last 1,700 years to judge from the radiocarbon date from the lower levels of the site. In turn, this could imply a climatic cause for the slumping of the adjacent mountain side.

Data on the age of this site and its depositional origin can then be interpreted in the light of the valley’s climatic history as determined from pollen studies and the geological record documented at other sites in the region.

5.4.8.2 Field Methods

The volume of intact sediments at this site is estimated at about 100 m3 (21 x 22m;

average depth of 70 cm). Lithic-artifact densities of 60/m3 for debitage and 5/m3 for tools are projected from the testing results. Testing produced no indication that it will be possible to distinguish more than one site component. Therefore, it is assumed that the entire site is the sampling universe. Field methods described here are those which will most efficiently retrieve the kinds of data identified above (e.g., a representative sample of the lithic assemblage, temporally diagnostic stone tools, charcoal samples, and geological documentation).

Survey and Surface Collection. The initial phase of data recovery at this site should begin with an intensive inspection of the entire surface of the site. All artifact concentrations, projectile points and other tools, and exotic raw materials should be marked with pin-flags during the course of the surface inspection. These materials should then be surface collected using the site’s datum to provenience individual artifacts or grid collection units.

Shovel Probes. As a basis for informed placement of EUs, it would be useful to excavate up to eight systematically spaced shovel probes across the site.

Excavation Units. To recover a representative sample of stone tools and debitage, it is recommended that a minimum volume of 5 m3 be excavated. This volume should produce the targeted minimums of 300 pieces of debitage and 25 stone tools and will represent approximately 5 percent of the total volume of the deposit.

Soil and sedimentary characteristics exposed in the EUs should be described and documented to permit the site’s depositional environment. These data on depositional history (mass wasting, slope runoff, etc.) can then be compared with the final site dates and with the valley’s climatic history as inferred from pollen studies and the geological record from other sites in the region.

Appendix 3: Data Recovery Plan for site 45WH262 Devil’s Junction Creek #2 from Schalk et al. 2011.

5. 4.7.1 Significance and Data Requirements Testing of this site resulted in its identification as a large lithic-reduction workshop where middle-to late-stage bifaces were made from Hozomeen chert and flakes were produced from metasediment. The intermediate-stage bifaces suggest that the site is itself intermediate to the point(s) where toolstone was obtained such as the Desolation Chert Quarry and a site(s) where final stages of tool production took place. The distinctive character of this site relative to other settlements or site types makes it particularly interesting for the investigation of hunter-gatherer land-use systems in the Skagit River Valley. The site’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is linked to its potential to yield data relating to five research domains: settlement, stone-tool technologies, exchange, chronology, and past climates.

An important consideration in data recovery at this site is that it apparently contains at least three distinguishable components. These include the high-density deposits described in the upper portion (0-65 cm) of TU-1, the lower-density deposits in the lower portion of the profile (65-100 cm) in this same test unit, and the vicinity of TU-3 which yielded a different lithic technology than other areas of the site. Sampling strategies proposed for data recovery, therefore, assume that at least three distinct populations should be sampled.

Data requirements for the settlement-system research domain will for the most part be satisfied with data recovered for the other four research domains. Data on lithic technology, exchange, chronology, and past climate are each relevant to placing this task- specific site into the context of its environmental, temporal, settlement contexts.

Stone-tool technology data requirements can best be met through the recovery of representative samples of lithic artifacts from each of the site components. This will require recovery of a minimum of approximately 300 lithic artifacts from each of the three components.

Data relating to exchange is expected to come primarily from the recovery of exotic lithic artifacts (obsidian or Cache Creek basalt). Such artifacts should be recovered in the course of recovery of lithic samples. In addition, surface collection was an important source of these materials during testing and should be included as part of the data- recovery effort as well. Realization of the data potentials of apparently exotic lithic raw materials also requires that they be analyzed in terms of their chemical composition so that they can, to the extent possible, be linked to specific known lithic sources.

Chronological data sources identified from testing include radiometric and typological dating.

Assaying charcoal samples recovered during excavation should provide the most precise technique for dating the deposits. Projectile points offer the second source of chronological data. Several projectile points were found during testing; surface collection combined with data-recovery excavations should substantially expand this number. Plant taxa represented in charcoal samples and bulk-flotation samples obtained during data recovery can be identified by a paleobotanist to provide insights into local vegetation communities and, in turn, past climate. Both cultural and non-cultural charcoal can be useful in this regard.

5.4.7.2 Field Methods

Survey and Surface Collection. The initial phase of on-site activities should be the intensive inspection of the site surface and flagging of all artifact concentrations, tools and diagnostic artifacts, and exotic lithics. This should then be followed by a systematic surface collection of flagged materials in which all individual artifacts or collection units are provenienced relative to the site datum.

Shovel Probes. The volume of intact deposits is estimated to be approximately 450 m3 (20 x 40 m;

average depth of 0.5 m). Assuming that these are spaced at an average of 10 meters across the surface of the site, approximately 15 probes should be sufficient to explore stratigraphy and artifact-density variations across the site.

Excavation Units. The information about the site obtained from survey and shovel probes, combined with the data available from testing, will provide the basis for placement of the EUs.

Because lithic-artifact densities range from 966/m3 in the upper component at TU-1, to 56/m3 in the lower component, and to 46/m3 in the vicinity of TU- 3, different excavation volumes will be required to adequately sample each component. Recovery of the minimum sample of lithics from the site component identified in TU-3 will require excavation of an estimated 7 m3 in that portion of the site. Because the densities of the upper component described in TU-1 are relatively high, minimum numbers of lithic artifacts should easily be exceeded while recovering the minimum samples from the underlying depositional unit where artifacts densities are lower.

Assuming similar depth relationships to those described at TU-1, excavation of approximately 16 m3 should yield the minimum lithic samples from the lower component. Therefore, the total targeted volume of EUs for this site would be approximately 23 m3 or about 5 percent of the site’s total estimated intact deposits.

Appendix 4: Map to Marblemount, ~15 miles;

to I-5, ~65 miles on State Route 20