Cultural Resources Assessment for the

South Whidbey Island Campground, Phase 1,

Island County, Washington

Prepared by

Amanda Taylor, Ph.D. Scott Pierson, B.A.

May 8, 2018

Cover Photo: Large second growth western redcedar observed in the southern portion of Loop A.

Legal description: T29N, R3E, Section 15 County: Island

USGS quad: Langley 7.5” Project Acreage: 35 Acres Surveyed: 11

Findings: - Fieldnotes: WillametteCRA

Curation: N/A

Cultural Resources Assessment for the

South Whidbey Island Campground Project, Phase 1,

Island County, Washington

Prepared by Amanda Taylor, Ph.D., Scott Pierson, B.A.,

May 8, 2018

Prepared for South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District,

Langley, Washington

Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, Ltd.

Portland and Seattle

WillametteCRA Report Number 18-36

i

Table of Contents

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. ii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Location and Description ........................................................................................................ 2

Project Area Setting and Background ...................................................................................................... 2

Geology .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Paleoenvironment .................................................................................................................................. 5

Precontact Native American History .................................................................................................. 5

Native Peoples ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Euroamerican Development ................................................................................................................ 8

Previous Archaeological Investigations ................................................................................................. 11

Expectations .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Archaeological Field Investigations........................................................................................................ 12

Field Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Results .................................................................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 19

References Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A: Summary of Shovel Probe Results

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the project area. ............................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2. Schematic of the project elements provided by J.A. Bennan. .................................................... 4

Figure 3. Project area depicted on 1874 GLO Map (Bureau of Land Management 2004). ................. 10

Figure 4. Project area depicted on a 1960 Metsker Map (Metsker 1960). ............................................... 10

Figure 5. Project area depicted on a 1963 aerial photograph. ................................................................... 11

Figure 6. Aerial image showing project area and location of shovel probes and test trenches. ........... 13

Figure 7. Overview of the project area from northeast corner of Loop A, view facing west. ............. 15

Figure 8. Overview of the project area from the southwest corner of Loop A, view facing west. ..... 15

Figure 9. Second growth western redcedar tree at location of SP 7, view facing north. ....................... 16

Figure 10. Notched western redcedar, view facing west. ........................................................................... 16

Figure 11. Notched western redcedar close-up, view facing west. ........................................................... 17

Figure 12. Disturbed road area in foreground. Excavator at TS 1, view facing south. ......................... 17

Figure 13. Soil profile for SP 8, plan view with north facing down. ........................................................ 18

Figure 14. Profile for TS 6, view to the south. ............................................................................................ 18

Figure 15. Soil profile for SP 10, view facing east. ...................................................................................... 19

1

Introduction

The South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District (SWPRD) plans to construct a campground

on a forested lot adjacent to South Whidbey High School near the City of Langley, Island County,

Washington. The SWPRD contracted with Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, Ltd.

(WillametteCRA) to conduct a cultural resources assessment of the proposed project area in

compliance with Washington State historic preservation regulations. This report presents the results

of our study.

The current cultural resources investigation consisted of a review of records on file with the

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s (DAHP) online database

system (WISAARD), a limited review of historic maps and archival materials, contact with the

affected Tribes, and pedestrian survey and shovel probing of the project area. WillametteCRA staff

conducted archaeological fieldwork on April 18, 2018. We identified no archaeological resources,

and no further cultural resources management measures are recommended.

Regulatory Context

The proposed South Whidbey Island Campground Project Phase 1 is receiving funding from

the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), and is therefore subject to review

under the Governor’s Executive Order No. 05-05. The project may also be subject to the provisions

of SEPA and its implementing rules contained in the Washington Administrative Code [WAC 197-

11], which require project proponents to identify any places or objects on or adjacent to the project

that are listed in, or eligible for, national, state, or local preservation registers, and to identify sites of

archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance on or adjacent to the project. Project proponents

are required to describe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to those places, objects,

and sites.

Other potentially applicable Washington state laws address archaeological sites and Native

American burials. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act [RCW 27.53] prohibits knowingly

excavating or 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. To prevent the looting or depredation

of sites, any maps, records, or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites,

historic sites, artifacts, or the site of traditional ceremonial, or social uses and activities of Indian

Tribes are exempt from disclosure [RCW 42.56.300].

WillametteCRA contacted cultural resource representatives of the Tulalip, Swinomish,

Stillaguamish, Samish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, Sauk-Suiattle, and Upper Skagit tribes with an

2

informal (non-consultation) technical inquiry regarding concerns they may have for cultural

resources specific to this project location and invited them to visit or participate in the fieldwork.

Project Location and Description

The project area is on a forested, gently sloping inland landform averaging approximately 50

meters above sea level within Township 29N, Range 3E, Section 15, Willamette Meridian, south of

the town of Langley on Whidbey Island in Island County (Figure 1). The tax parcel number is

R32910-091-3750. It is approximately 2.5 kilometers (km) west of the Saratoga Passage and 0.8 km

west of an unnamed creek. The SWPRD plans to build a new campground on an existing system of

logging roads within the parcel. Activities associated with potential subsurface impacts include road

construction, tree and brush clearing and ground leveling for campsites, and construction of a pay

station and washroom. WillametteCRA conducted a cultural resources survey for the 11-acre Phase

1 (Loop A) portion of the proposed 35-acre parcel (Figure 2). Aside from an access road and logging

trails, the property has not been developed. There is currently no public access to the project area.

Project Area Setting and Background

Geology, paleoenvironment, and previous ethnographic and archaeological studies provide

general expectation that informs our field survey methodology and provides context for interpreting

the depositional environment, integrity, and significance of cultural resources identified during

archival and field research.

Geology

Past global climate change caused the advance and retreat of large ice sheets that shaped the

landscape of northern Puget Sound. During the cool Fraser glaciation period 30-10,000 calibrated

years before the present (BP), the Puget lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced into the Puget

Lowland between the Olympic and Cascade Mountain Ranges. The ice retreated when the climate

warmed toward the end of that period, and by ca. 15,000 years ago it had left behind glacial drift and

Vashon till on the deglaciated landscape (Armstrong et al. 1965; Easterbrook 1986; Porter and

Swanson 1998). Detailed topographic LIDAR images of the landscape on Whidbey Island show the

ice flow direction across the surface of the island; Vashon till is visible on the images, exposed in the

eroding landforms on Double Bluff (Haugerud et al. 2003). When the glacial ice rested upon the

Puget Lowland during the Fraser glaciation, the land was depressed and sea level was higher relative

to modern sea level. As the ice melted, the land rose (isostatic uplift), which caused relative sea level

to be lower than it is today. As a result, during the early Holocene beginning around 10,000 years

ago, rivers and streams had higher energy and incised glacial deposits. However, global (eustatic) sea

level was also rising as continental glaciers melted, so sea level rose again, river and stream energy

slowed, and deltas formed in the Puget Lowland (Dragovich et al. 2002; Porter and Swanson 1998).

3

Figure 1. Location of the project area.

4

Figure 2. Schematic of the project elements provided by J.A. Brennan.

Relative sea level reached its modern level by approximately 5000 years ago (Mosher and Hewitt

2004). Tectonic activity has also shaped the landscape on Whidbey Island. A large fault zone on

southern Whidbey Island divides the pre-Tertiary-age Cascade block to the northeast and Eocene-

age marine basalts of the Coast Range block to the southeast. Surface deformation and stratigraphy

indicate active faulting and folding has occurred throughout the late Quaternary (the past 1-.5

million years ago), and continues today (Johnson et al. 2001).

The modern landscape of interior Whidbey Island is characterized by rolling uplands with

north-south oriented ridges and valleys. Interior forest soils like the Utsalady-Uselessbay and

Indianola-Uselessbay soils in the project area derive from glacial parent material, and are very

shallow. The typical profile for Utsalady-Uselessbay complex soil consists of a decomposed plant

material O Horizon at 1-2.5 centimeters below the surface (cmbs), a loamy sand A Horizon at 2.5-5

cmbs, a loamy sand B Horizon at 5-107 cmbs, and a sand/loamy sand C Horizon at 107-152 cmbs.

The typical profile for the Indianola-Uselessbay complex is a decomposed plant material O Horizon

at 0-2.5 cmbs, a loamy sand A Horizon at 2.5-15 cmbs, a loamy sand B Horizon at 15-69 cmbs, a

sand B/C-horizon at 69-93 cmbs, and a sand C-horizon at 93-152 cmbs (NRCS 2018).

5

Paleoenvironment

Alongside glaciation and sea level changes, climate shifts altered vegetation communities in the

northern Puget Sound region and have shaped the landscape of this region into its condition we see

today (see Whitlock and Knox 2002; Weiser 2006). Due to the rainshadow effect of the Olympic

Mountains, Whidbey Island is drier than the adjacent mainland. The Early Holocene (11,000-7,800

years ago) was characterized by a dry climate with slightly higher temperatures than today, and

naturally occurring prairies amid red alder and Douglas-fir forests. In the Middle Holocene (7,800-

4,400 BP), the climate became cooler and wetter. Open prairies decreased in size, and forests

dominated by western redcedar, western hemlock, Oregon ash, and big leaf maple expanded. In the

Late Holocene (4,400-present), the climate was like today with the exception of a warm, dry Fraser

Valley Fire Period (2,400-1,200 BP). Natural prairies shrank, but anthropogenic burning maintained

open areas (Weiser 2006). Today, the Western Hemlock Zone forests of interior Whidbey Island

include western hemlock, western red cedar, Douglas-fir, big leaf maple, and madrone with

understory bracken fern, salmonberry, ocean spray, and red and evergreen huckleberry (Franklin and

Dryness 1973).

Faunal communities have been affected by changes in climate, vegetation and human predation.

Bison, mammoth, and other large mammals were present in the greater Puget Sound and Straits

region until the end of the Ice Age (Wilson et al. 2009), along with wolves, bear, and elk which were

extirpated by human farming and hunting by the 1850s (White 1980). Mammals on the island today

include deer, raccoons, weasels, and skunks. The island is also rich in waterfowl (Bryan 1963; White

1980). Aquatic resources include freshwater fish, several species of salmon, steelhead, flounder,

perch, rockfish, dogfish, greenling, herring, smelt and sole (Miller and Borton 1980). In intertidal

environments, there are mussels, littleneck and butter clams, oysters, sea urchins, acorn barnacles

and a variety of other shellfish (Kozloff 1996). Marine mammals noted in the area include orca and

gray whales, harbor seals, sea lions and porpoises (Ingles 1965). People who lived on Whidbey Island

had good access to plant and animal resources, and the locations and abundance of these resources

provides an important context for archaeological investigations.

Precontact Native American History

In the early 1900s, the Jesup North Pacific Expedition explored the Northwest Coast. Harlan

Smith directed the archaeological research effort, and recorded observations about several shell

middens and rock cairns on Whidbey Island (Smith 1907). In the 1950s, additional sites on Whidbey

Island were recorded when the University of Washington Department of Anthropology funded a

shoreline survey of Skagit, Snohomish, and Island Counties (Bryan 1963). As development increased

in Island County in the 1970s, more small-scale cultural resources surveys were conducted. Wessen

(1988) conducted an extensive survey of archaeological sites in Island County in 1987-1988. He

relocated and reported on previously recorded sites that were mostly on shorelines, although he also

6

surveyed some inland areas to find previously unrecorded sites. On southern Whidbey Island,

Wessen noted that of 16 previously recorded sites, all were on shorelines, 12 were shell middens and

4 were earthworks. Only 3 could be relocated due to erosion and development. Since that time, most

archaeological work on Whidbey Island has been associated with cultural resources management

projects with the exception of Weiser’s research on ancient land management on Ebey’s prairie

(Weiser 2006; Weiser and Lepofsky 2009). Geological work has been conducted on sea level,

seismic, glacial history, and shoreline erosion (e.g., Haugerud et al. (2003); Liberty and Pape 2013;

Rogers et al. 2012; Shipman 2010).

Culture histories for Island County and Whidbey Island are based on a relatively small number

of sites and limited material evidence due to a lack of systematic archaeological work. Bryan (1955,

1963) proposed two cultural phases, an earlier terrestrial-oriented stage and a later maritime phase.

Blukis Onat’s (1987:17-19) four stage scheme for the northern Puget Sound emphasizes changes in

subsistence adaptations through time. The review below focuses mainly on the available

archaeological evidence specific to Whidbey Island.

The earliest archaeological evidence for a terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene occupation of

the northern Puget Sound includes a bison butchering site and two projectile point isolates. On

Orcas Island, there is possible evidence for butchering of a Bison antiquus at between about 13,000

and 14,000 years ago (Kenady et al. 2011). An isolated Clovis point (45IS112) was found in a garden

on Whidbey Island (Croes et al. 2008), and a Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) point was found in

the plow zone at Ebey’s Landing (Stein et al. 2006) – point styles indicative of Late Pleistocene stone

tool-making traditions. In Redmond, Washington, the Bear Creek site yielded WST artifacts

(Kopperl et al. 2015, 2016). However, no fluted or large stemmed points have been found in intact

buried contexts in the northern Puget Sound (Croes et al. 2008). Elsewhere in Western Washington,

“Olcott” willow-leaf-shaped projectile points and blade cores made on heavily weathered

metasedimentary rock found in buried contexts date to the Early-Middle Holocene (about 9000-

5000 years ago) (Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Carlson 1990; Chatters et al. 2011). Radiocarbon dates from

features from an archaeological site at Ebey’s Landing on central Whidbey Island approximately 25

miles north-northwest of the project area range from over 8,000 years ago to the late historic period,

indicating a long-term use of interior prairies (Stein et al. 2006; Weiser 2006).

In the Middle Holocene (8000-4000 years ago), the general trend in the Puget Sound region

likely paralleled a trend toward a mixed marine and terrestrial economy found elsewhere in western

Washington with the first evidence of cedar plank houses (Blukis Onat 1987). There is no specific

archaeological evidence of sites dating to this period on Whidbey Island, potentially because of

rising sea level and erosion that likely destroyed or inundated sites of this age along the now-

submerged shoreline from that time period.

7

In the Late Holocene (4000 years ago to the present), archaeological evidence from Whidbey

Island is consistent with increased use of marine resources, prairie resources, and increasing social

complexity and social interaction. Many shell middens on the shorelines of Whidbey Island likely

date to this time period as they do in the San Juan Islands (Taylor et al. 2011), although there have

been few systematic excavations. On nearby Camano Island, the Cama Beach shell midden was

occupied for much of the past two millennia (Schalk 2010). Results of analysis of this large shell

midden were consistent with the interpretation that increasingly intensive use of marine resources

occurred during this time. On central Whidbey Island on Ebey’s Prairie, Weiser (2006) proposes that

an increase in the number of features after 2300 BP along with increase in prairie plants such as

camas suggests more intensive maintenance and use of prairies. An important site on Penn Cove,

the Snakelum Point shell midden, was occupied since at least the contact period (430-130 BP) and

likely before that time. Wollwage et al. (2015) report on past salvage excavations there noting that

along with marine resources, historic artifacts like copper ball buttons and glass and stone beads had

been reported (Bryan 1963).

Native Peoples

Ancestors of present day Sauk-Suiattle, Snoqualmie, Stillaguamish, Suquamish, Tulalip, and

Upper Skagit tribes have lived on or visited Whidbey Island for thousands of years. Southern Coast

Salish peoples who spoke a Northern Lushootseed dialect were present on Whidbey Island at

historic contact (Bryan 1955, 1963; Gibbs 1855, 1877; Smith 1901, 1907; Suttles and Lane 1990;

Vancouver 1801; Wilkes 1845). Ethnohistorians note that in the early historic period, Whidbey

Island was shared by several groups including the Snohomish on southern Whidbey Island and

Camano Island, the Skagit on central Whidbey Island, and the Squinamish on northern Whidbey

Island (Suttles and Lane 1990). Coast Salish peoples on Whidbey Island lived in large winter villages

in cedar plank houses, breaking off into smaller summer groups to gather plants, hunt, fish, and dry

and process resources (Miss and Campbell 1991; Wessen 1988). Subsistence focused on shellfishing,

gathering plant resources, and hunting for deer, elk and duck (Bryan 1963). During the early contact

period, there were almost 100 habitation or resource procurement sites and a population of

approximately 1500-2500 (White 1980:15). Native communities in the northern Puget Sound created

strong social networks through marriages, ceremonies, and exchange (Miss and Campbell 1991;

Suttles and Lane 1990). Although ethnographic documentation of use of inland forest resources is

very limited, people would have traversed the interior of Whidbey Island to cut and haul logs for

canoes, strip cedar bark for a variety of uses such as baskets and clothes (Stewart 2009), and hunt

and gather plants.

Ethnohistoric writings and traditional ecological knowledge suggest that native peoples focused

on prairie plant resources including bracken fern, camas, berries, wild onions, and nettle. Along with

burning forested areas to increase harvests, they also tilled the land with digging sticks (Weiser

8

2006). Gunther (1973) documents use of blackberry, serviceberry, cranberry, thimbleberry,

huckleberry, ferns (bracken, wood, and sword), wild carrots, rose hips, tiger lilies, hazelnuts, camas,

wapato, acorns, and crab apple.

Several locations near the project area are associated with traditional native place names, but

none are plotted in interior areas near the project. There are five recorded locations on the bay on

Possession Sound across from Hat Island, approximately 2.5 miles east of the project area: Ctcu’sad

“star” (Randall Point), Tcutcu’Ladzutsid “among the maple’s mouth” (flat area where an unnamed

creek enters the sound), Sglli’lgw L “wading with your canoe” (area where waves cut into a cliff), B teb

tco’ “having lumps” (projection south of Sandy Point), and Tc ‘tc Leks “scratched nose” (Sandy

Point). Along with Tc ‘tc Leks, two other large native villages on South Whidbey Island were

recorded as DEgwadzk “lots of species of crab” and SHET’LH-shet-lhuts “burnt leaves” (Riddle 2012;

Waterman 2001).

Euroamerican Development

When George Vancouver explored the Puget Sound in 1792, he encountered southern Coast

Salish peoples who may have recently survived a smallpox epidemic (Suttles and Lane 1990). Under

Vancouver’s command, Lieutenant Joseph Whidbey visited the cove that later became known as

Penn Cove (Meany 1957:61). The Hudson’s Bay company founded Fort Langley on the Fraser River

in 1827 and Fort Nisqually in what is today Dupont, Washington in 1833 (Suttles and Lane 1990).

Roman Catholic missionaries Fathers Francis Norbert Blanchet and Modeste Demers traveled

through the Puget Sound in 1839-1840, holding a church service on Whidbey Island with Chief

Tslalakum at Ebey’s Landing (Suttles and Lane 1990; Neil and Brainerd 1989). The Wilkes U.S.

Exploring Expedition mapped the island in 1841, noting that native people were building a log

church, growing potatoes, and had a barricade for protection against Haida peoples (Kellogg 1961).

Drawn by cleared prairies and rich natural resources, Isaac Ebey and other Euroamericans

began claiming land on central and northern Whidbey Island under the Donation Land Act of 1850

(Kellogg 1934:18-19; White 1980:37). Euroamericans grazed pigs, cattle, and sheep on the prairies

formerly managed through controlled burns by native peoples. Forests were cleared for more

farmland, and wetland habitats were drained (White 1980). South Whidbey Island was largely

untouched by Euroamerican settlement until the 1880s when logging camps were established (Neil

and Brainerd 1989:11). An exception was Robert Bailey, who made an early land claim on south

Whidbey Island at Bailey Bay in 1852, and R. Brunn who made a claim on Mutiny Bay in 1853

(Kellogg 1934:26). Bailey married a native woman from the nearby native village of Digwash, and so

did his son Henry. The Bailey family recorded longhouses, a shack, and clam drying structures on

Bailey’s (now Cultus) Bay. In the 1880s, a small number of settlers established land claims that

would later be the Maxwelton community 5 miles south-southwest of the project area (Neil and

Brainerd 1989; White 1980).

9

In 1881, Jacob Anthes began homesteading what would later become the townsite of Langley

about 4 km north of the project, in 1891(Kellog 1934). In the 1880s, he established south Whidbey

Island as a center of cordwood supply for the Mosquito Fleet (Riddle 2012). The town of Langley

grew and prospered in the 1890s due to a shingle mill and an influx of settlers from the Gold Rush

and from summer tourism from crowded cities. A boat service to the island began in 1911; Puget

Sound Navigation Company started a vehicle ferry service in 1919, which increased automobile

traffic to, and within, the island (Riddle 2012).

Logging has been the historic-period process that played the greatest role in shaping the

immediate vicinity of the project parcel. The history of logging on South Whidbey Island parallels

the history of logging throughout Western Washington. Prior to contact, Native peoples selectively

harvested trees for tools, baskets, mats, and clothing. Western redcedar was particularly important.

They also managed forests through anthropogenic burning. When Euroamericans first visited the

area, they described dense forests with towering old growth trees. In the 1820s, Hudson’s Bay

Company and other Euroamerican colonists put fur hunters to work chopping down trees in the

off-season. The California Gold Rush of the late 1840s created even larger demand for lumber. San

Francisco entrepreneurs backed Western Washington sawmills. Workers lived in mill towns and also

established temporary logging camps (Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest 2018). Loggers

cut trees with crosscut saws and used ox teams to drag them to the water to be rafted to mills or

loaded onto ships. They often cut notches into the trunk of the trees above base to insert a plank

using a technique called “springboard notching” (White 1980). The innovation of the narrow gauge

donkey engine in 1881 allowed the logging of interior areas where water transport was not an

option. The Timber Industry expanded rapidly, and in many places including Whidbey Island, most

of the old growth forests had been logged by the 1920s (Riddle 2012).

Historic maps and documents indicate that the project area was undeveloped when it was first

surveyed by the General Land Office (GLO) in 1874. An unnamed creek is shown within

approximately 0.5 km of the project area. The first landowners were William Page Druitt and Ad

Spangenbarger in 1888 who purchased the land through cash sale under the Land Act of 1820

(Bureau of Land Management 2018). The property changed hands a few times since the original land

claims. On a 1960 Metsker Map, the landowner is listed as A. Gabelein (Figure 4), a member of a

prominent Euroamerican family on Whidbey Island. Arthur Gabelein’s parents Gustav and Emilie

Gabelein were German immigrants who came to the island in 1908 and settled on a farm on Useless

Bay. Their children and grandchildren farmed, logged, and bought up tracts of forest land on South

Whidbey Island (Thompson 2018). The family selectively logged the property on which the project

area is located. They donated the land to its current owner, the South Whidbey Parks and Recreation

District, in 2017 (Austin Carter, Tom Fallon, Personal communication April 18, 2018). The earliest

available aerial imagery for the project area dates to 1963 and shows an undeveloped forested area

(Figure 5).

10

Figure 3. Project area depicted on 1874 GLO Map (Bureau of Land Management 2004).

Figure 4. Project area depicted on a 1960 Metsker Map (Metsker 1960).

11

Figure 5. Project area depicted on a 1963 aerial photograph.

Previous Archaeological Investigations

Only one previous cultural resources investigation has been conducted within approximately

one mile of the project area based on a search of the DAHP online database, an archaeological

survey associated with the construction of the multi-purpose Maxwelton Trail for the Island County

Public Works Department (Robinson 2004). No cultural resources were found during that

investigation, which included pedestrian transects and a shovel probe survey. Two additional cultural

resources investigations on South Whidbey Island nearby, but beyond one mile of the project area,

include Hovezak’s (2009) survey associated with the Trustland Trails ADA and Equestrian Trailhead

Parking Lot and Picnic Grounds 1.5 miles west of the project area, and Sheridan’s (2010) historic

structures survey for the City of Langley 0.6 km north of the project area. Hovezak reported no

precontact or historic cultural resources. Sheridan describes several historic structures in Langley,

including two that have been determined NRHP eligible.

Review of DAHP’s WISAARD indicates that no cultural resources have previously been

recorded within approximately one mile of the project area. At greater distance on south Whidbey

Island, several small shell midden sites were recorded (45IS26, 45IS22, 45IS23, 45IS24) that Wessen

(1988) subsequently reported as destroyed by erosion. On Baby (Hackney) Island, Wessen (1988)

describes 45IS108 as a substantial intact shell midden. On Sandy Point, which is 2.4 miles northeast

12

of the project area, site 45IS20 was recorded by Bryan (1955) based on ethnographic research. Prior

to residential and shoreline development, the site included a “potlatch house”, campsite, and earth

ovens that were in use until at least 1914. Two historic properties have been recorded within

approximately one mile of the project area, the Free Methodist (Little Brown) Church at the

intersection of Maxwelton Road and Sills Road and the Karen Kirshner home at 5717 Maxwelton

Road, which has been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No cemeteries or traditional

cultural places have been reported within one mile of the project area.

Expectations

The Washington state archaeological predictive model categorizes the project vicinity as having

a moderately low risk for precontact archaeological resources. Prior to the fieldwork component of

the current assessment, and based on previous investigations near the project area, archaeological

manifestations of past human use in the project area potentially included precontact lithic sites, lithic

isolates, and historic isolates. Because there is no recorded commercial or residential development

on site, intact historic archaeological sites were not expected. Historic refuse was considered a

possibility, however, and potentially associated with past logging, hunting, or recreation activities.

Archaeological Field Investigations

Field Methods

WillametteCRA archaeologists Amanda Taylor and Scott Pierson conducted fieldwork on April

18, 2018, using a combination of pedestrian survey and shovel probes. Survey conditions were fair.

Forest, understory plants, and leaf litter hindered ground surface visibility in most locations although

there were some areas of ground surface visibility along cleared logging trails, and at root exposures

and animal burrows. Pedestrian survey focused on identifying remnants of historic logging practices,

precontact and historic artifacts on the ground surface, and suitable areas for subsurface excavation.

A total of 11 shovel probes (SPs) were excavated to characterize subsurface sediments within the

Phase 1 project area. The SPs measured approximately 40 centimeters (cm) in diameter and were

hand-excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels to variable depths, usually terminating in B-C horizon soil

(Appendix A). All excavated sediment was passed through ¼-inch mesh screen. Shovel probe

placement focused on coverage of the Loop A project area (Figure 6). Selective test-pit excavation

with a backhoe expanded the horizontal coverage of subsurface sediment data and provided a better

understanding the overall stratigraphy of the project area (see Figure 6). Using a small Kubota

KX040-4 backhoe, SWPRD staff member Austin Carter excavated 11 short (2-3 meter (m)) trench

segments (TS) every 10-15 m along an E-W transect approximately 25 meters south of the northern

boundary of the Loop A project area. The crew monitored backhoe excavation and inspected walls

of the trenches and spoils for possible features and artifacts. Sediment characteristics and cultural

material observed in the SPs and trench segments were recorded on standard shovel probe records.

13

Figure 6. Aerial image showing project area and location of shovel probes and test trenches.

14

General observations regarding the project area were documented on a standard daily work record.

Digital photographs were taken of the project area and shovel probe locations with photograph

information noted on a photo log. Probes were backfilled immediately upon completion. Mapping

data were recorded using a hand-held GPS unit.

Results

No cultural materials were observed during fieldwork. The project area is located on a gently

sloping and hummocky inland forested landform with thick vegetation. Plants observed on site

include conifers (western redcedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir) and salal, blackberries,

salmonberries, and sword fern (Figure 7 and 8). Previous landowners selectively harvested wood,

maintaining several large western redcedar trees on the south side of the Loop A project area. Wide

paths previously cleared as logging trails will be used as the footprint for the road for Loop A of the

proposed campground (Doug Coutts, personal communication April 18, 2018). Parts of the mapped

trail system match well with the schematic, but the south and east sides of Loop A on the schematic

are several meters out of alignment with the plans. Large second-growth western redcedars are

present on the south side of the property (Figure 9). During pedestrian survey, no artifacts or

structures were encountered in the project area. We identified one potential springboard notch in a

western redcedar tree near SP 4 (Figures 10 and 11), consistent with long-term use of the property

for selective logging. None of the mature trees observed during the survey exhibited peeling scars or

other evidence of traditional Native American modification. Most of the ground surface appeared

relatively undisturbed except for the area in the northwest corner of the project area where the

access road from South Whidbey High School intersects with the logging trail. There appears to be a

push pile in this area where the road was flattened (Figure 12).

A total of 11 shovel probes were excavated within the project area: SPs 1-5 are located on the

west side of the loop, SPs 6-8 are on the south side of the loop, SPs 9-10 are on the east side of the

loop, and SP 11 is on the north side of the loop (see Figure 6). In many of the SPs and trench

segments, an organic duff layer and brown to dark brown sandy silt or silty fine sand A Horizon was

underlain by a reddish brown B Horizon with common or many very small to very large subrounded

and rounded pebbles. The boundary between the two horizons typically occurred between 8-24

cmbs, consistent with forest soils as opposed to prairie, or former prairie, soils. In SPs 3-5 and TS 7,

no A Horizon was present. Roots and rootlets decreased with depth. The lower boundary of the

reddish or yellowish brown B Horizon occurred at 40-45 cmbs. A light gray fine-coarse sandy silt C

Horizon with common or many small-medium sub round pebbles marked the beginning of

unweathered parent glacial material (Figures 13 and 14; Appendix A). Therefore, most SPs were

terminated at approximately 10 cm into the C Horizon at 50-70 cmbs. In some cases, such as SP 10,

we encountered evidence of previous forest burning (Figure 15). No cultural materials were present

in the shovel probes or the trench segments.

15

Figure 7. Overview of the project area from northeast corner of Loop A, view facing west.

Figure 8. Overview of the project area from the southwest corner of Loop A, view facing west.

16

Figure 9. Second growth western redcedar tree at location of SP 7, view facing north.

Figure 10. Notched western redcedar, view facing west.

17

Figure 11. Notched western redcedar close-up, view facing west.

Figure 12. Disturbed road area in foreground. Excavator at TS 1, view facing south.

18

Figure 13. Soil profile for SP 8, plan view with north facing down.

Figure 14. Profile for TS 6, view to the south.

19

Figure 15. Soil profile for SP 10, view facing east.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The project was considered to have a moderately low potential for buried precontact

archaeological resources based on the DAHP predictive model and review of previous land use and

archaeological investigations in the project vicinity. The probability for historic period resources was

also considered to be low because there was minimal commercial or residential development nearby.

Pedestrian survey, shovel probes, and trench excavation did not identify evidence of archaeological

deposits within the project area. No further archaeological work is recommended for the project

area, however; we recommend an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) be in place prior to

construction that outlines the protocols to be followed in the event of an unanticipated discovery of

archaeological materials or human remains. While no cultural materials were identified during field

reconnaissance, it is still possible that small or discrete cultural features or isolated artifacts could be

present and inadvertently discovered during project excavations or subsequent brush or tree clearing

activities.

20

In the unlikely event human remains are encountered during any part of the project, the law

requires all activity to cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains, and the area of the

find secured and protected from further disturbance. The finding of human skeletal remains will be

reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious

manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county coroner

will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those

remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county coroner determines the remains are non-forensic,

they will report that finding to the DAHP who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The

DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical

Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and

report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then

handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and

disposition of the remains.

21

References Cited

Armstrong, J. E., Crandell, D. R., Easterbrook, D. J., & Noble, J. B. 1965 Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and chronology in southwestern British Columbia and

northwestern Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 76(3): 321-330.

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

Puget Sound Study Unit. BOAS, Inc. report prepared for the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, 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. report prepared for Philip and Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA.

Boyd, Robert (editor) 1999 Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Bryan, Alan L. 1955 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Northern Puget Sound Region.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

1963 An Archaeological Survey of Northern Puget Sound. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, Number 11, Pocatello, Idaho.

Bureau of Land Management 2004 BLM GLO Records. Electronic resource, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov, accessed April

12, 2018.

Carlson, Roy L. 1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest

Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 60-69. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest 2018 Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Placing Washington’s Forest in Historical Context. University of

Washington. Electronic resource, http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Classroom%20Materials/Curriculum%20Packets/Evergreen%20State/Section%20II.html, accessed April 19, 2010.

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

AMEC Earth & Environmental report prepared for Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Everett, Washington.

22

Croes, Dale R., Scott Williams, Larry Ross, Mark Collard, Carolyn Dennier, and Barbara Vargo 2008 The projectile point sequences in the Puget Sound region. In Projectile Point Sequences in

Northwestern North America edited by R.L. Carlson and M.P.R. Magne, pp.105-130. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby British Columbia.

Dragovich, Joe D., Robert L. Logan, Henry W. Schasse, Timothy J. Walsh, William S. Lingley, Jr., David K. Norman, Wendy J. Gerstel, Thomas J. Lapen, J. E. Shuster, and Karen D. Meyers

2002 Geologic Map of Washington - Northwest Quadrant. Geologic Map GM-50. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Easterbrook, Don J. 1986 Stratigraphy and chronology of Quaternary deposits of the Puget Lowland and Olympic

Mountains of Washington and the Cascade Mountains of Washington and Oregon. Quaternary Science Reviews 5:145-159.

Frankin, Jerry F. and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report PNW-8.

Gibbs, George 1855 Report of Mr. George Gibbs to Captain McClellen, on the Indian Tribes of the Territory of

Washington. Pacific Railroad Reports. United States War Department, Washington D.C. 1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Contributions to North

American Ethnology (I) 2.

Gunther, Erna 1973 Ethnobotany of Western Washington, Revised Edition. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Hovezak, M.J. 2009 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Trustland Trails ADA and Equestrian Trailhead Parking

Lot and Picnic Grounds and ADA Loop Trail Project, Whidbey Island, Washington. Rosario Archaeology L.L.C. report prepared on behalf of South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District, Langley, Washington.

Haugerud, Ralph A., David J. Harding, Samuel Y. Johnson, Jerry L. Harless, Craig S. Weaver, and Brian L. Sherrod.

2003 High-resolution lidar topography of the Puget Lowland, Washington. GSA Today 13(6):4-10.

Ingles, Lloyd G. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, Washington. Stanford University

Press, Stanford, California.

Johnson, Samuel Y., Christopher J. Potter, John J. Miller, John M. Armentrout, Carol Finn, and Craig S. Weaver.

1996 The southern Whidbey Island fault: an active structure in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 108(3): 334-354.

23

Kellogg, George Albert 1933 A History of Whidbey's Island. Island County Farm Bureau News.

Kenady, Stephen M., Michael C. Wilson, Randall F. Schalk, and Robert R. Mierendorf 2011 Late Pleistocene butchered Bison antiquus from Ayer Pond, Orcas Island, Pacific

Northwest: Age confirmation and taphonomy. Quaternary international 233(2):130-141.

Kozloff, Eugene N. 1996 Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle,

Washington.

Kopperl, Robert E. (editor) 2016 Results of Data Recovery at the Bear Creek Site (45KI839), King County, Washington. SWCA

Environmental Consultants report 15-462 prepared for the City of Redmond, Washington.

Kopperl, Robert E., Amanda K. Taylor, Christian J. Miss, Kenneth M. Ames, and Charles M. Hodges

2015 The Bear Creek Site (45KI839), a Late Pleistocene–Holocene Transition Occupation in the Puget Sound Lowland, King County, Washington. PaleoAmerica 1(1):116-120.

Lepofsky, Dana, Ken Lertzman, Douglas Hallett, and Rolf Mathewes 2005 Climate Change and Culture Change on the Southern Coast of British Columbia, 2,400-

1,200 cal. BP: An Hypothesis. American Antiquity 70(2):267-293.

Liberty, Lee M., and Kristin M. Pape 2013 Seismic Characterization of the Seattle and Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zones in the

Snoqualmie River Valley, Washington. Center for Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface (CGISS)-Boise State University.

Meany, E. S. 1957 Vancouver's Discovery of Puget Sound. Vancouver's Journals as far as they deal with the journey from Cape

Flattery into Puget Sound and north around Vancouver Island to Nootka Sound]. Binford & Mort, Portland, Oregon.

Metsker, Chas. F. 1960 Township 29 N., Range 3 E. W.M., King County, Wash. Electronic resource,

http://www.historicmapworks.com, accessed on April 15, 2018.

Miller, Bruce S. and Steven F. Borton 1980 Geographical Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and Data Source Sheets. Washington Sea

Grant, Seattle, Washington.

Miss, C. and S.K. Campbell 1991 Prehistoric Cultural Resources of Snohomish County, Washington. Northwest Archaeological

Associates report prepared for the Washington State Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (now Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation), Olympia, Washington.

24

Mosher, David C. and Antony T. Hewitt 2004 Late Quaternary Deglaciation and Sea-level history of eastern Juan De Fuca Strait, Cascadia.

Quaternary International 12(1):23-39.

Neil, Dorothy and Lee Brainard 1989 By Canoe and Sailing Ship They Came: A History of Whidbey’s Island. Spendthrift Publishing

Company, Oak Harbor, Washington.

Porter, Stephen C. and Terry W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constrains on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the

Cordilleran ice sheet during the last glaciation. Quaternary Research 50(3):205-213.

National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2018 Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource,

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 11, 2018.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008 Soil survey of Island County, Washington. Electronic resource,

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_ surveys/, accessed April 11, 2018.

Riddle, Margaret 2012 Langley – Thumbnail History. Electronic resource, http://www.historylink.org/File/10220,

accessed April 19, 2018.

Robinson, Joan M. 2004 An Archaeological Survey of Island County’s Maxwelton Trail Project, Whidbey Island, WA. Robinson

Cultural Resource Services report prepared for the Island County Public Works Department/Washington State Department of Transportation, Coupeville/Olympia, WA.

Rogers, Heather E., Terry W. Swanson, and John O. Stone 2012 Long-term shoreline retreat rates on Whidbey Island, Washington, USA. Quaternary Research

78(2): 315-322.

Schalk, Randall and Margaret A. Nelson (editors) 2010 The Archaeology of the Cama Beach Shell Midden (45IS2) Camano Island, Washington. Cascadia

Archaeology report prepared for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, Washington.

Sheridan, Mimi 2010 City of Langley Historic Resource Survey Report. Sheridan Consulting Group report

prepared for City of Langley Historic Preservation Commission, Langley, Washington.

Shipman, Hugh 2010 The geomorphic setting of Puget Sound: implications for shoreline erosion and the impacts

of erosion control structures. Puget Sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring—proceedings of a state of the science workshop, May 2009.

25

Smith, Harlan 1901 Whidbey Island. In, Cairns of British Columbia and Washington, Memoirs of the American

Museum of Natural History. Volume IV, Publications of The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Part II, by H.1. Smith and G. Fowke, New York.

1907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. In, Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition Volume II Part VI, edited by Franz Boas, AMS Press, New York.

Spier, Leslie 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology Number 3, George

Banta, Menasha, Wisconsin.

Stein, Julie K., Shelby Anderson and Jacob Fisher 2006 Report on the Ebey’s Prairie Depositional History. University of Washington research report

prepared for the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

Stewart, Hilary 2009 Cedar: Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast Indians. Douglas and McIntyre Publishers, Madeira

Park, British Columbia 2009.

Suttles, Wayne and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast,

edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Taylor, Amanda K., Julie K. Stein, and Stephanie A.E. Jolivette 2011 Big sites, small sites, and coastal settlement patterns in the San Juan Islands, Washington,

USA. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 6(2): 287-313.

Thompson, Evan 2018 Historical Society to Lead Presentation About Gabelein family History. South Whidbey Record,

Wednesday February 21, 2018. Electronic resource, http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/news/historical-society-to-lead-presentation-about-gabelein-family-history/, accessed April 20, 2018.

Vancouver, George 1801 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Round the World, Volume 2. Printed for John

Stockdale, London.

Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography edited by V. Hilbert, J. Miller, and Zalmai Zahir. Lushootseed Press,

Federal Way, Washington.

Wessen, G.C. 1988 Prehistoric Cultural Resources of Island County. Washington. Wessen and Associates report prepared

for the Washington State Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (now Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation),Olympia.

26

Weiser, Andrea, and Dana Lepofsky 2009 Ancient land use and management of Ebey's Prairie, Whidbey Island, Washington. Journal of

Ethnobiology 29(2): 184-212.

Weiser, Andrea L. 2006 Exploring 10,000 years of Human History on Ebey’s Prairie, Whidbey Island, Washington.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology-Simon Fraser University.

White, Richard 1980 Land Use, Environment, and Social Change: The Shaping of Island County, Washington. University of

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Whitlock, C. and M.A. Knox 2002 Prehistoric Burning in the Pacific Northwest. In Fire, Native People, and the Natural Landscape,

edited by Thomas Vale, pp. 195-231. Island Press, Washington DC.

Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Expedition, Vol. IX. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia.

Wilson, Michael C., Stephen M. Kenady, and Randall F. Schalk. 2009 Late Pleistocene Bison antiquus from Orcas Island, Washington, and the biogeographic

importance of an early postglacial land mammal dispersal corridor from the mainland to Vancouver Island. Quaternary Research 71(1): 49-61.

Wollwage, Lance K., Guy Tasa and Stephenie Kramer 2015 A Partial Stratigraphy of the Snakelum Point Site, 45-IS-13, Island County, Washington, and

Comment on the Sampling of Shell Midden Sites Using Small Excavation Units. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 49(1):43-60.

Appendix A:

Summary of Shovel Probe Results

Summary of Shovel Probe Results

SP # Depth (cmbs)

Sediment Characteristics Other Characteristics Cultural

Materials

1

0-11

Very dark brown fine sandy silt; common subrounded to rounded small to large pebbles; clear wavy boundary. A Horizon

Located 15 m north of the E-W trenchline on the eastern edge of the northern road

0

11-28

Light yellowish brown silty fine sand; common subrounded to rounded small to very large pebbles; clear, slight wavy boundary. B1 Horizon

0

28-55

Pale brown silty fine to medium sand; common subrounded to rounded small pebbles to small cobbles; common large, distinct orange mottles (28-39 cmbs); clear wavy boundary. B2 Horizon

55-60

Light gray silty fine-coarse sand; common subrounded to rounded small pebbles to small cobbles. C Horizon/Glacial Drift

0

2

0-24

Very dark brown fine sandy sit; common subrounded small to large pebbles; 2-3 cm duff on surfaces, many small-fine roots; possible fire-modified rock at 0-20 cmbs; clear wavy boundary. A Horizon

Located 15 m south of trench line; several cut stumps (w. red cedar) in vicinity; pushpile located 3 m north.

0

24-45

Dark reddish brown sandy silt; common subrounded small to very large pebbles; few large roots; clear wavy boundary. B Horizon

0

45-55

Light gray fine to coarse sandy silt; many subangular and subrounded very small to very large pebbles and small cobbles; few roots. C Horizon

0

3

0-42

Very dark brown and reddish brown silty fine-medium sand; common subrounded and rounded small to very large pebbles. 2-3 cm of duff on the surface, many fine-small roots. Many downed trees/slash in the vicinity; discontinuous charcoal and ash layer on east side of probe 15-20 cmbs; clear wavy boundary. Disturbed/mixed A and B Horizon

Located on the west side of the trail; many downed trees in the vicinity

0

42-60

Light gray silty fine-coarse sand; many sub-angular to round very small to large pebbles and small cobbles; very few roots. C Horizon

0

Summary of Shovel Probe Results (cont.).

SP # Depth (cmbs)

Sediment Characteristics Other Characteristics Cultural Materials

4

0-37

Mixed dark reddish brown and dark brown silty fine-medium sand; common sub-rounded and rounded small to very large pebbles; common fine roots, small charcoal chunks; 1 fire reddened rock at 10 cmbs; clear irregular boundary. Mixed A and B Horizon

0

37-50

Light gray fine to coarse sandy silt; common subangular to round very small to very large pebbles and small cobbles; very few roots. C Horizon

0

5

0-30

Dark brown mixed with light yellowish brown silty fine sand; common subrounded small to large pebbles; 3-4 cm duff on surface; clear irregular boundary. Mixed/disturbed A-B Horizon

0

20-43

Dark reddish brown fine-medium sandy silt; common subrounded small to very large pebbles and small cobbles; discontinuous layer of charcoal and ash at 22-27 cmbs; clear wavy boundary. B Horizon

0

43-50

Light gray fine-medium sandy silt; many subangular and subrounded very small pebbles to very large pebbles and small and large cobbles. C Horizon

0

6

0-7

Very dark brown fine sandy silt; few sub-rounded small and medium pebbles; 3-5 cm duff on the surface; many fine-small roots, common charcoal chunks near the surface; clear wavy boundary. A Horizon

Located 10 meters NE of the SW corner of Loop A

0

7-48

Dark yellowish brown silty fine-medium sand; many sub-rounded very small to medium pebbles; common small roots; terminated at cobble boulder. B Horizon

0

7 0-40

Light yellowish brown/pale brown silty fine-medium sand; common subrounded small and medium pebbles; 3 cm of duff on the surface, charcoal and oxidized sediment at 20-24 cmbs, likely root burn. A Horizon missing

0

Summary of Shovel Probe Results (cont.).

SP # Depth (cmbs)

Sediment Characteristics Other Characteristics Cultural Materials

8

0-11

Very dark brown fine sandy silt with common subrounded small and medium pebbles; few small roots. A Horizon

0

11-49

Pale brown silty fine-medium sand with common subrounded small to very large pebbles; large distinct-faint orange mottles at 11-35 cmbs (oxidized sediment); few small charcoal chunks; gradual unclear transition. B Horizon

0

49-70

Light gray silty fine-medium sand with common sub-angular to rounded very small to very large pebbles and small cobbles; common small faint orange mottles. C Horizon

0

9

0-8

Very dark brown fine sandy silt; common subrounded and rounded small and medium pebbles; many small roots, few small charcoal chunks; clear wavy boundary. A Horizon

0

8-44

Light yellowish-brown silty fine-medium sand; many sub-rounded and rounded small to large pebbles; few small roots; clear wavy boundary. B Horizon

0

44-60

Pale brown silty sand; many sub-angular, sub-rounded and rounded small to very large pebbles and small cobbles; very few small roots. C Horizon

0

10

0-25 Brownish red decomposed wood. 0

25-30 Black sandy clay loam with abundant burned/decomposed wood; clear wavy boundary.

0

30-35 Gray silty sand; very few subangular small pebbles; rootlets; clear wavy boundary.

0

35-55

Reddish brown silty sand; many small-medium subrounded pebbles; clear wavy boundary. B Horizon

0

55-60 Gray sand; many small-medium sub-round pebbles. C Horizon

0

Summary of Shovel Probe Results (cont.).

SP # Depth (cmbs)

Sediment Characteristics Other Characteristics Cultural

Materials

11

0-25

Brown silty sand; few subrounded small pebbles; roots; some mottling and compact areas; gradual wavy boundary. O/A Horizon

0

25-45

Reddish brown sand; common subrounded small pebbles; rootlets and charcoal flecks, gradual wavy boundary. B Horizon

0

45-70 Brownish gray sand; common subrounded small pebbles C Horizon.

0