USDA Forest Service
Gifford Pinchot National
Forest
Existing Information Analysis
For
Prepared by: Rick McClure
Date Last Edited: September 7, 2004
Edited By: Rick McClure
Past
human use of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project area included seasonal
late prehistoric occupations, historic-period use by local Taidnapam people for
fishing and berry collection, and historic period recreational use by
non-native settlers and their descendants.
Historic uses also included preliminary hydroelectric project
development by the Valley Development Company, ca. 1906-1912, and subsequent
Forest Service administrative activities.
Fifteen heritage resource properties have been identified in the project
area as a result of previous Forest Service survey projects, three of which are
eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The analysis of existing information indicates that additional
inventory and evaluation of heritage resources will be necessary before overall
project effects are assessed. Field
data from two archaeological sites suggest that inundation and pool level
fluctuation are resulting in site damage through erosion and soil loss.
The
purpose of the EIA is to describe continuing effects of project operation on heritage
resources and establish additional study needs where information is
incomplete. Heritage resources are
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that contain evidence of
past human activities. They include
historic and prehistoric sites and properties of traditional religious and
cultural importance (TCPs).
Since 1980, a series of heritage resource surveys have been
conducted within the immediate vicinity of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project. All were carried out by Forest Service
personnel in conjunction with specific agency projects at Packwood Lake and
along the penstock route.
Initial inventory of heritage resources at Packwood Lake
involved 1982 site visits to document Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (#1166), a log
cabin built in 1910 by the Valley Development Company for their construction
camp. The cabin later served as a
Forest Service Ranger Station. Documentation
was for purposes of a National Register of Historic Places nomination (McClure
1982). The historic cabin was
determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and the
Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the agency
finding. Although nominated, the
property was never listed on the National Register. Formal notice of the nomination was published in the Federal
Register in August 1982.
Prehistoric
lithic artifact material was identified on the ground surface near the historic
cabin in 1986, and the site documented as the Packwood Lake Outlet
archaeological site, 45LE285. A more
detailed investigation of the site was conducted in April and May of 1987 for a
project involving replacement of the trail bridge over Lake Creek. The 1987 survey included test excavations on
the north bank of Lake Creek (McClure 1987a).
A significance evaluation determined that the archaeological site was
eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (McClure 1987b). Additional test excavations were conducted
in August 1987 on the south side of Lake Creek. Excavations within five meters of the historic guard station
produced quantities of prehistoric artifact material from a stratum beneath
Mount St. Helens subset Wn
tephra. Early 20th century
artifacts were recovered from the stratum overlying the tephra. Analysis of artifact material from the 1987
test excavations was conducted by Jeffrey A. Markos, and reported in his 1990
Master’s thesis, subsequently published by the Forest Service (Markos
1990).
Despite the extensive sampling of archaeological site
45LE285 in 1987, horizontal limits of the subsurface cultural material remained
undefined. In 1991, a cultural resource
survey was conducted by Forest Service archaeologist Janet Liddle in
conjunction with the installation of a new well for drinking water at Packwood
Lake. The location of the well, 27 m
southwest of the historic guard cabin and in close proximity to site 45LE285,
raised concerns about the boundaries of the site. Liddle directed a field crew in the excavation of 54 subsurface
probes designed to identify the horizontal extent of subsurface artifact
material. On the basis of this project,
it was determined that the archaeological site covers approximately 1,575 m2, on both sides of Lake Creek.
In 1992,
a survey was conducted in conjunction with a re-evaluation of the special use
permit for Packwood Lake Resort. Forest
Service archaeologist Dale Fournier conducted the survey of the 4-acre former
resort area. Fournier (1992) documented
the history of the resort, and recorded extant historic period features visible
within the resort area. Features were
primarily leveled areas and foundations associated with former resort
cabins. Some scattered glass and wood
artifact material was also noted. The
resort site (USFS #13102102) was found ineligible with respect to National
Register of Historic Places significance criteria. The State Archaeologist, representing the State Historic
Preservation Officer, concurred with the agency determination.
The most
recent heritage resource survey in the area was carried out as part of an
effort in 2004 to restore the historic Packwood Lake Guard Cabin. The survey project involved subsurface
sampling in the area where sill log replacement would involve possible ground
disturbance (McClure 2004). A small
number of historic-period artifacts, probably associated with use of the cabin,
were recovered from probes. Additional
materials were recovered during archaeological monitoring of the log
replacement. There was no disturbance
to the prehistoric component of the site.
Two
previous cultural resource surveys have involved portions of the pipeline route
and penstock west of Packwood Lake. The
reconnaissance survey for the Snyder Line Timber Sale, conducted in 1980,
identified remains of the ca. 1910 VDC tramway hoist house near the present
Energy Northwest surge tank. The 1990
cultural resource survey for Pack Rat Salvage Timber Sale identified multiple
historic features, including the flume bed, tramway grade, and trail
constructed by the VDC (Liddle 1990). Investigators
noted that the historic tramway “has been thoroughly disturbed” by the 1960s
installation of the penstock from Packwood Lake. Other historic features associated with VDC activities (Table 1)
were noted in the penstock and surge tank vicinity.
SUMMARY OF HERITAGE RESOURCES
Previous
heritage resource investigations in the project area have resulted in the
identification of fourteen heritage properties. Most of the properties, including sites and features associated
with the early hydroelectric development of the Valley Development Company
(Table 1), have only minimal documentation.
By contrast, relatively extensive test excavations and several projects
involving the Packwood Lake Outlet site (45LE285) have resulted in a larger
documentary record. A total of fifteen
heritage resources are currently on record with the inventory database
maintained by the Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Seven of these properties are the physical
remains of structures, features, facilities, and worker use of facilities built
by the VDC between 1909 and 1912. Two
prehistoric archaeological sites, one isolate prehistoric artifact, and a
historic-period peeled cedar tree have also been recorded along the
lakeshore. Three other identified
sites, reported only in surveyor field notes, are associated with early 20th
century fisheries management activities by the State Game Department. These include a reported cabin site and two
fishtrap features. The only extant
historic structure or building in the project area is the Packwood Lake Guard
Cabin (#1166), a log cabin built by the VDC in 1910 and subsequently used as a
seasonal ranger station by the Forest Service.
Although
Native American use of the project area in the 19th century is
well-documented, no traditional cultural properties (TCPs) have been
identified. A comprehensive inventory
of ethnographic sites within Gifford Pinchot National Forest, conducted between
1992 and 1995, acknowledged traditional use of the lake, but identified no
specific cultural places (Hajda et al. 1995).
Traditional fishing sites presumably correspond with the mouths of each
of the four trout spawning streams entering the lake, including Upper Lake
Creek, all of which are within the project APE. Traditional berry patches were likely on mountain slopes or ridges
above the lake, outside the project APE.
Base camps for berry picking may have been along the lakeshore.
Table 1. Heritage Resources, Packwood Lake
Hydroelectric Project APE
|
FS number |
Name |
Significance |
Reference |
|
13092303 |
VDC
telephone line |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1990 |
|
13092304 |
VDC
tramway hoist house |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1990 |
|
13092305 |
VDC
road and flume bed |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1990 |
|
13092401 |
VDC
road/flume bridge |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1990 |
|
13092601 |
VDC
Smoothrock Cr. Bridge |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1990 |
|
13102101 |
Packwood
Lake Guard Cabin |
NRHP -eligible |
McClure 1982 |
|
13102102 |
Packwood
Lake Resort |
not eligible |
Fornier 1991 |
|
13102103 |
Big
Sleep Peeled Cedar |
NRHP-eligible |
Freymond 1992 |
|
13102104 |
Packwood
Lake Stock Barn |
not evaluated |
Liddle 1991 |
|
13102115 |
Packwood
Lake Outlet Site |
NRHP-eligible |
McClure 1987 |
|
13102801 |
Fishtrap |
not evaluated |
McClure 1982 |
|
13102802 |
Game
Department Cabin site |
not evaluated |
McClure 1982 |
|
13102803 |
Cuyu’ik
Site |
not evaluated |
Jensen & Liddle 1987 |
|
13102804 |
Lithic
isolate artifact |
not evaluated |
Jensen 1988 |
|
13103301 |
Upper
Lake Creek Fishtrap |
not evaluated |
McClure 1982 |
Law,
regulation, and policy are the framework of the land and resource management
plan. Each is summarized below as they pertain to heritage resources.
Federal Law
The
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the federal
government’s policy and programs on historic preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires federal
agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or
federally assisted or permitted undertaking, to take into account the effects
an undertaking may have on historic properties listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Besides
the NHPA, a number of additional legislative and executive orders direct
consideration of the cultural environment on National Forest System lands and
are relevant to the current project, including the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA), Executive Order 11593 (1971), Executive Order
13007 (1996), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of
1990. Each of these laws and E.O.s are
briefly discussed below.
AIRFA
(P.L. 95-341) states that it is the policy of the United States to protect
American Indians’ right to believe, express and exercise their traditional
religions, including but not limited to “access to sites, use and possession of
sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional
rites”. AIRFA reaffirms the responsibility
of federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures with the aim of
avoiding infringements on Indian religious freedom, and to make a good faith
effort to consult with Indian people about protecting Indian religious cultural
rites and practices.
Executive
Order 11593 requires agency heads to locate, inventory, and nominate all
eligible cultural resources to the NRHP and exercise caution until these
inventories and evaluations are complete to ensure that no eligible federally
owned property is transferred, sold, demolished or substantially altered. The order outlines procedures for meeting
the inventory requirements of NHPA and NEPA and established the principal of
“interim protection” which states that, until a resource has been evaluated, it
must be treated as if it were eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Executive
Order 13007 mandates that federal agencies protect and accommodate access to
and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious
practitioners. The order also mandates
that agencies avoid adverse physical effects to such sites to the extent
practicable and that they maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. The executive order affirms that federal
agencies should give reasonable notice of proposed actions or land management
policies that may restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or may
adversely affect the physical integrity of, sacred sites.
The
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] (P.L. 101-601,
implementing regulations at 43 CFR 10) addresses the rights of lineal
descendants and members of Indian tribes, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
organizations to retain certain human remains and precisely defined cultural
items. It covers items currently in
federal repositories as well as future discoveries. Federal agencies must consult with the most likely direct
descendant or a culturally affiliated tribe or organization where an
undertaking may affect an Indian grave site.
Regulation
The
principal Federal regulations governing protection of historic and cultural
properties are embodied in 36 CFR Part 800, the implementing regulations of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The
regulations provide requirements for the inventory and evaluation of cultural
resources, evaluation of project effects, and resolution of adverse
effects. Requirements for consultation
are also included in the regulations, including revisions of 1999 and 2004.
Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission responsibilities regarding compliance with federal
cultural resource law are set forth in 18 CFR 4.51(f)(4).
Policy
USDA
Forest Service policy regarding heritage resource management is set forth in
the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2360, Part 2361. Policy calls for the management of cultural resources as a
nonrenewable resource to maintain their scientific, historical, and social
integrity, following the requirements of NHPA.
Forest Service policy also calls for the use of cultural resources for
educational, scientific, recreational, and other public purposes consistent
with management requirements. Section
2361.21 outlines steps to ensure that cultural resources are preserved in place
whenever possible. Policy under this
section also includes direction to complete management plans for significant
historic properties.
Operational
policies and direction are set forth in a 1997 Programmatic Agreement among the
USDA Forest Service, Washington SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation regarding management of heritage programs on National Forests in
Washington.
Forest Plan
The Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan Amendment 11 (1995:2-25 to 2-27) provides management direction
for all National Forest System lands and their associated resources directly
affected by or within the vicinity of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric
Project. Forest-wide standards and
guidelines for heritage resources also apply to projects that are permitted,
but not performed by the Forest Service. The following pertain to this Existing
Information Analysis:
1.
Project
areas will be examined for heritage resources by a qualified specialist. The inventory will be conducted as early as
feasible in the project planning stage.
2.
Heritage
resource inventory work will be coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer.
3.
All
heritage resources, including sites and structures, will be evaluated to
determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
4.
Potential
effects of project activities on heritage resources will be assessed.
5.
Heritage
resources eligible for the National Register will be protected from potential
effects of project activities or their historic values conserved through
appropriate mitigation.
6.
Heritage
resources eligible for the National Register will be protected from depredation
resulting from public use and natural deterioration.
7.
Measures
to avoid or mitigate project effects and to protect heritage sites and
structures will be developed in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer.
8.
Suitable
heritage resources should be developed and interpreted for recreational use
when adequate provisions are available to protect the resource.
9.
Specific
heritage resource site locations are exempt from disclosure to the general
public.
10.
Development
of heritage resource management plans should be coordinated with local tribes
where appropriate.
11.
Traditional
food and plant material gathering sites used by Native Americans may be managed
for continued production of native roots, berries, nuts, herbs, beargrass, and
other plant materials typically gathered from the land.
12. Consultation with affected tribes
will be conducted early in the planning process and will occur on a
government-to-government basis.
Conflicts will be resolved collaboratively, with affected tribes
involved in the planning process.
Significant
heritage resources will be protected from potential effects of ongoing
hydroelectric project activities, depredation due to public use, and natural
deterioration. Where this is not
possible, historic values will be conserved through appropriate
mitigation. Suitable heritage resources
should be developed and interpreted for public use.
Rights
and privileges under the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 for the Nisqually,
Puyallup, Squaxin Island, and Steilacoom Indian Tribes and Yakima Treaty of
1855 for the Yakama Nation will be reserved for those groups. Outside of Treaty areas, resource management
plans should be coordinated with local tribes where appropriate. Outside and within Treaty areas, traditional
food and plant material gathering sites used by Native Americans may be managed
for continued resource production.
Analysis
of existing information indicates that survey data regarding heritage resources
in the project area are incomplete. Archaeological
surveys have included virtually all of the lake shoreline, but only a small
area near the lake outlet has been examined during periods of pool
draw-down. Subsurface sampling was not
utilized as a survey strategy except in determining the boundaries of site
45LE285, at the lake outlet. Previous
heritage resource surveys have included about 10-20% of the penstock
route.
Fifteen
heritage resource properties have been identified in the project area as a
result of previous surveys. Half of
these are sites and features associated with the early hydroelectric
development efforts of the Valley Development Company (VDC). Four sites are associated with prehistoric
and historic period Native American use of the lake basin. The remaining sites are associated with
other historic uses, including fisheries management, recreation, and early
Forest Service administration. Only
four of the properties have been formally evaluated in consultation with the
Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Packwood Lake Guard Cabin, the Packwood Lake
Outlet archaeological site (45LE285), and the Big Sleep peeled cedar site have
all been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site of the historic Packwood Lake
Resort was found not to be eligible.
Shoreline
erosion continues to expose prehistoric and historic period artifact material
at site 45LE285 (Packwood Lake Outlet site). Erosion of site deposits appears related to inundation of a
portion of the site following construction of the dam and the subsequent
fluctuation of higher lake levels.
Detailed mapping and collection of artifact material was conducted
within the inundation zone at the site in 1987. Re-examination of the same area in 2004 showed further exposure
of artifact material, suggesting that erosion is ongoing. Similar erosion was observed at the Cuyu’ik Site, a heritage resource not
yet evaluated for NRHP significance. Effects
to site 45LE285 indicate a need for change to prevent further loss of historic
values. The feasibility of monitoring, site
stabilization and other mitigation measures will be assessed during the
relicensing process. Similar
assessments will be necessary for other heritage resources determined eligible
to the NRHP as the process of site inventory and evaluation is completed.
To meet
the direction of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest LRMP, the following
objectives must be met within the scope of the relicensing process:
1.
Complete
inventory and significance evaluation of prehistoric, historic, and traditional
cultural resources within the project area, to be coordinated with the SHPO and
affected tribes.
2.
Assessment
of project effects to significant heritage resources.
3.
Development
of a heritage resource management plan for the project, incorporating, as
appropriate, monitoring provisions, protective measures, interpretation, and
other forms of mitigation.
To assess
the ongoing effects of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project to heritage
resources and determine any need for change, the following studies are
needed:
1.
Research
design for heritage resource inventory and evaluation, developed in
coordination with SHPO, Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Yakama Nation. The research design will serve as a guide to
the process of identifying and evaluating heritage resources in the project
area. Using background research, this
study will provide a framework for survey expectations and field methods, as
well as a context for assessing the significance of identified resources.
2.
Heritage
resource inventory. A comprehensive
field survey is needed to identify all archaeological resources, above-ground
historic resources, and traditional cultural resources in the project
area. The archaeological survey will
follow procedures outlined in the current approved heritage resource inventory
plan for Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
Survey methods will include inspection of high-probability shoreline
areas during draw-down periods and subsurface sampling in specified
high-probability zones. Site
documentation will conform to SHPO and Forest Service standards, to include
boundary determination, condition assessment, and collection of data sufficient
to make NRHP eligibility determinations.
3.
In the
event that condition assessments are insufficient to determine overall project
effects and need for change, it may be necessary to develop a monitoring plan
to collect additional data.
Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis, Washington]
1909
Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers. 10 December:10.
Cunningham,
Harry
1910
Map of Packwood Lake, dated December 10, 1910. RG 95, Records of the Forest Service. National Archives and Records Administration, Alaska Pacific
Region, Seattle.
Fournier,
Dale M.
1993 Cultural
Resource Survey Report, Packwood Lake Resort EA. USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Packwood
Ranger District. Report on file, Heritage
Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, Washington. OAHP Log No. 012093-02
Hajda,
Yvonne, David V. Ellis, John L. Fagan, Douglas C. Wilson, and Bonnie J. Mills
1995 Ethnographic Sites of
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington, Volume I. Archaeological Research Investigations
Northwest, Inc, Report No. 59. Heritage
Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, WA.
Jacobs,
Melville M.
1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts, Part I. Columbia University
Contributions to Anthropology, 19(1).
Columbia University Press, New York.
Kiona,
Mary
1965
Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy. Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel
tape on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
McKay,
Kathy L.
1990
Valley Development Company: Brief History. Ms on file, Heritage Program, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout
Lake, Washington.
Packwood
Community Study Proceedings (PCSP)
1954
The Valley Development Company. In Packwood on the March, Part 4,
History Committee Report.
University of Washington Community Development Bureau, Seattle.