From Desserault Audrey JTo Khounnala Shannon E ODonnell Corey PCc Desserault Audrey JSubject CUIPRIV Information HPMP for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric ProjectDate Tuesday December 18 2018 20452 PMAttachments Historic Properties Management Plan Final 121818pdfSensitivity Private

From Desserault Audrey J ltAJDESSERAULTenergy-northwestcomgtSent Tuesday December 18 2018 152 PMTo Frank Winchell ltfrankwinchellfercgovgt Rob Whitlam ltRobWhitlamdahpwagovgt WilliamIyall ltWIyallCowlitzorggt Nathan Reynolds ltNReynoldscowlitzorggt Kate ValdezltKate_Valdezyakamacomgt Ruth Tracy ltrtracyfsfedusgt Matthew MawhirterltMJMawhirterfsfedusgtCc Desserault Audrey J ltAJDESSERAULTenergy-northwestcomgtSubject CUIPRIV Information HPMP for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric ProjectSensitivity Private Attention Parties of the Programmatic Agreement of the Packwood LakeHydroelectric Project The following letter and attachment will be filed with the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) by Energy Northwest as it relates to the Packwood LakeHydroelectric Project Subject PACKWOOD LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC DOCKET NO P-2244LICENSE ARTICLE 406HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ANDPROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Reference 1) Letter dated October 11 2018 FERC to Energy Northwest Order

Issuing New License2) Programmatic Agreement executed October 26 20093) Historic Properties Management Plan filed August 30 2007

Energy Northwest (EN) in accordance with Article 406 of the Order Issuing NewOperating License issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)October 11 2018 herein files the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) forthe Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) In accordance with theProgrammatic Agreement (PA) EN is required to implement the associated HPMP forthe term of the new license The final HPMP was collaboratively developed during the relicensing process withrequisite agencies finalized and filed with FERC on August 30 2007 EnergyNorthwest has updated the HPMP to include details from the new license added atable of contents and standardized the acronyms No substantive revisions weremade to the document

Confidential Plan

Final Historic Properties Management Plan for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington

Submitted to

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington DC

Submitted by

PO Box 968 Richland Washington 99352-0968

December 2018

CUIPRIV

i

Table of Contents 10 Introduction 1

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations 3 21 Federal Laws and Regulations 3 22 Washington State Laws and Regulations 4 23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes 5

30 Project Description 5

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts 5 41 Environmental Context 5 42 Prehistoric Context 6

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago 6 422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago 7 423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago 7

43 Native American Context 7 44 Euro-American Context 9

50 Identification of Historic Properties 12 51 Area of Potential Effects 12 52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group 12 53 Background Research 16 54 Field Inventory 16 55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility 18

551 Prehistoric Sites 20 552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites 22 553 Buildings and Structures 22

56 Historic Properties 24

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing 24

70 General Management Measures 25 71 Management Goals Principles and Standards 25

711 Goals 28 712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties 28

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator 29 73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy 29 74 Consultation and Meetings 30 75 Personnel Training 30 76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains 31 77 Reporting 32

80 Specific Measures 32 81 Applicability of ARPA Permits 33 82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities 33 83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 33 84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism 33 85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains 34 86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions 35 87 Measures for 45LE285 35 88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley 35

CUIPRIV

ii

89 Public Education and Interpretation 35

90 Plan Implementation 36 91 Procedures 36 92 Schedule 36 93 Plan Review and Revisions 36 94 Dispute Resolution 37

100 References Cited 38 Treatment of Archaeological Materials 1 Treatment of Human Remains 2

List of Figures Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle) 2 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects 14 Figure 3 Sensitivity Map 17 Figure 4 View of 45LE285 21 Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station 23 Figure 6 Cableway Trolley 24 Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley 27 List of Tables Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

20 Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures 36 Appendices Glossary and Acronym List Appendix A Inadvertent Discovery Plan Appendix B

CUIPRIV

1

10 Introduction

Energy Northwest (EN) has owned and operated the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) in southwestern Washington since the 1960s under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) P-2244 Figure 1 provides a map of the Project which is located on Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) and private land in Lewis County

FERC regulations require that a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) be developed to mitigate and manage Project effects on historic properties which are cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) regardless of their age or type Applicable FERC staff guidelines appear in the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (May 2002) These guidelines call for an HPMP to

Identify the nature and significance of historic properties that may be affected by day-to-day project maintenance and operation proposed improvements to project facilities and public access

Identify goals for preservation of historic properties

Establish guidelines for routine maintenance and operations

Provide procedures for integrated resource management during project planning activities ndash including consistency with other management programs

Establish mechanisms for consultation with regulatory agencies Indian tribes historic preservation experts and the interested public

Coordinate with some other Project plans and

Be written in plain English with a minimum of historic preservation jargon

EN secured the services of Historical Research Associates Inc (HRA) for this HPMP as well as other cultural resources studies for the Project The company consulted with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) about the archaeological historical and traditional cultural properties (TCP) inventory and evaluation for the Project (Dampf and Thompson 2006) The inventory survey discussed in Section 5 encountered several cultural resources in or near the Projects Area of Potential Effects (APE) The work identified one National Register-eligible archaeological site (45LE285) that needs to be managed in cooperation with the GPNF in addition one buildingstructure (the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging StationCableway Trolley) that is not individually eligible should be managed in case it later proves to be eligible as part of a multiple property submission This HPMP is intended to assist EN personnel in managing the prehistoric property and the buildingstructure over the term of the new license to preserve their integrity

CUIPRIV

2

Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle)

Surge Tank

Penstock

Diversion Dam and Intake Structure

Powerhouse Warehouse Area Switchyard

Tailrace Pipeline and Tunnels

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

i

Table of Contents 10 Introduction 1

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations 3 21 Federal Laws and Regulations 3 22 Washington State Laws and Regulations 4 23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes 5

30 Project Description 5

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts 5 41 Environmental Context 5 42 Prehistoric Context 6

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago 6 422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago 7 423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago 7

43 Native American Context 7 44 Euro-American Context 9

50 Identification of Historic Properties 12 51 Area of Potential Effects 12 52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group 12 53 Background Research 16 54 Field Inventory 16 55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility 18

551 Prehistoric Sites 20 552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites 22 553 Buildings and Structures 22

56 Historic Properties 24

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing 24

70 General Management Measures 25 71 Management Goals Principles and Standards 25

711 Goals 28 712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties 28

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator 29 73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy 29 74 Consultation and Meetings 30 75 Personnel Training 30 76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains 31 77 Reporting 32

80 Specific Measures 32 81 Applicability of ARPA Permits 33 82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities 33 83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 33 84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism 33 85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains 34 86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions 35 87 Measures for 45LE285 35 88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley 35

CUIPRIV

ii

89 Public Education and Interpretation 35

90 Plan Implementation 36 91 Procedures 36 92 Schedule 36 93 Plan Review and Revisions 36 94 Dispute Resolution 37

100 References Cited 38 Treatment of Archaeological Materials 1 Treatment of Human Remains 2

List of Figures Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle) 2 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects 14 Figure 3 Sensitivity Map 17 Figure 4 View of 45LE285 21 Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station 23 Figure 6 Cableway Trolley 24 Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley 27 List of Tables Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

20 Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures 36 Appendices Glossary and Acronym List Appendix A Inadvertent Discovery Plan Appendix B

CUIPRIV

1

10 Introduction

Energy Northwest (EN) has owned and operated the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) in southwestern Washington since the 1960s under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) P-2244 Figure 1 provides a map of the Project which is located on Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) and private land in Lewis County

FERC regulations require that a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) be developed to mitigate and manage Project effects on historic properties which are cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) regardless of their age or type Applicable FERC staff guidelines appear in the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (May 2002) These guidelines call for an HPMP to

Identify the nature and significance of historic properties that may be affected by day-to-day project maintenance and operation proposed improvements to project facilities and public access

Identify goals for preservation of historic properties

Establish guidelines for routine maintenance and operations

Provide procedures for integrated resource management during project planning activities ndash including consistency with other management programs

Establish mechanisms for consultation with regulatory agencies Indian tribes historic preservation experts and the interested public

Coordinate with some other Project plans and

Be written in plain English with a minimum of historic preservation jargon

EN secured the services of Historical Research Associates Inc (HRA) for this HPMP as well as other cultural resources studies for the Project The company consulted with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) about the archaeological historical and traditional cultural properties (TCP) inventory and evaluation for the Project (Dampf and Thompson 2006) The inventory survey discussed in Section 5 encountered several cultural resources in or near the Projects Area of Potential Effects (APE) The work identified one National Register-eligible archaeological site (45LE285) that needs to be managed in cooperation with the GPNF in addition one buildingstructure (the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging StationCableway Trolley) that is not individually eligible should be managed in case it later proves to be eligible as part of a multiple property submission This HPMP is intended to assist EN personnel in managing the prehistoric property and the buildingstructure over the term of the new license to preserve their integrity

CUIPRIV

2

Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle)

Surge Tank

Penstock

Diversion Dam and Intake Structure

Powerhouse Warehouse Area Switchyard

Tailrace Pipeline and Tunnels

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

ii

89 Public Education and Interpretation 35

90 Plan Implementation 36 91 Procedures 36 92 Schedule 36 93 Plan Review and Revisions 36 94 Dispute Resolution 37

100 References Cited 38 Treatment of Archaeological Materials 1 Treatment of Human Remains 2

List of Figures Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle) 2 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects 14 Figure 3 Sensitivity Map 17 Figure 4 View of 45LE285 21 Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station 23 Figure 6 Cableway Trolley 24 Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley 27 List of Tables Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

20 Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures 36 Appendices Glossary and Acronym List Appendix A Inadvertent Discovery Plan Appendix B

CUIPRIV

1

10 Introduction

Energy Northwest (EN) has owned and operated the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) in southwestern Washington since the 1960s under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) P-2244 Figure 1 provides a map of the Project which is located on Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) and private land in Lewis County

FERC regulations require that a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) be developed to mitigate and manage Project effects on historic properties which are cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) regardless of their age or type Applicable FERC staff guidelines appear in the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (May 2002) These guidelines call for an HPMP to

Identify the nature and significance of historic properties that may be affected by day-to-day project maintenance and operation proposed improvements to project facilities and public access

Identify goals for preservation of historic properties

Establish guidelines for routine maintenance and operations

Provide procedures for integrated resource management during project planning activities ndash including consistency with other management programs

Establish mechanisms for consultation with regulatory agencies Indian tribes historic preservation experts and the interested public

Coordinate with some other Project plans and

Be written in plain English with a minimum of historic preservation jargon

EN secured the services of Historical Research Associates Inc (HRA) for this HPMP as well as other cultural resources studies for the Project The company consulted with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) about the archaeological historical and traditional cultural properties (TCP) inventory and evaluation for the Project (Dampf and Thompson 2006) The inventory survey discussed in Section 5 encountered several cultural resources in or near the Projects Area of Potential Effects (APE) The work identified one National Register-eligible archaeological site (45LE285) that needs to be managed in cooperation with the GPNF in addition one buildingstructure (the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging StationCableway Trolley) that is not individually eligible should be managed in case it later proves to be eligible as part of a multiple property submission This HPMP is intended to assist EN personnel in managing the prehistoric property and the buildingstructure over the term of the new license to preserve their integrity

CUIPRIV

2

Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle)

Surge Tank

Penstock

Diversion Dam and Intake Structure

Powerhouse Warehouse Area Switchyard

Tailrace Pipeline and Tunnels

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

1

10 Introduction

Energy Northwest (EN) has owned and operated the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) in southwestern Washington since the 1960s under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) P-2244 Figure 1 provides a map of the Project which is located on Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) and private land in Lewis County

FERC regulations require that a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) be developed to mitigate and manage Project effects on historic properties which are cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) regardless of their age or type Applicable FERC staff guidelines appear in the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects (May 2002) These guidelines call for an HPMP to

Identify the nature and significance of historic properties that may be affected by day-to-day project maintenance and operation proposed improvements to project facilities and public access

Identify goals for preservation of historic properties

Establish guidelines for routine maintenance and operations

Provide procedures for integrated resource management during project planning activities ndash including consistency with other management programs

Establish mechanisms for consultation with regulatory agencies Indian tribes historic preservation experts and the interested public

Coordinate with some other Project plans and

Be written in plain English with a minimum of historic preservation jargon

EN secured the services of Historical Research Associates Inc (HRA) for this HPMP as well as other cultural resources studies for the Project The company consulted with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) about the archaeological historical and traditional cultural properties (TCP) inventory and evaluation for the Project (Dampf and Thompson 2006) The inventory survey discussed in Section 5 encountered several cultural resources in or near the Projects Area of Potential Effects (APE) The work identified one National Register-eligible archaeological site (45LE285) that needs to be managed in cooperation with the GPNF in addition one buildingstructure (the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging StationCableway Trolley) that is not individually eligible should be managed in case it later proves to be eligible as part of a multiple property submission This HPMP is intended to assist EN personnel in managing the prehistoric property and the buildingstructure over the term of the new license to preserve their integrity

CUIPRIV

2

Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle)

Surge Tank

Penstock

Diversion Dam and Intake Structure

Powerhouse Warehouse Area Switchyard

Tailrace Pipeline and Tunnels

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

2

Figure 1 Project location (From USGS 1100000-scale series Mount Rainier Quadrangle)

Surge Tank

Penstock

Diversion Dam and Intake Structure

Powerhouse Warehouse Area Switchyard

Tailrace Pipeline and Tunnels

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

3

This HPMP briefly reviews the research that EN undertook to identify and evaluate the historic properties the effects of relicensing on the identified historic property and the measures that will be taken to manage it during the new license period EN is committed to exercising good stewardship over the Projectrsquos historic property by following applicable federal and state laws and regulations in consultation with oversight agencies and affected Indian Tribes consistent with ENrsquos responsibilities to its customers and to the natural and social resources it manages

20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations

The following sections discuss the Projects regulatory context including applicable federal and state cultural resource laws regulations and executive orders

21 Federal Laws and Regulations Several Federal historic preservation and environmental laws and their implementing

regulations apply including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as amended and regulations developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 36 CFR Part 800 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) Each of these applies differentially depending largely on land ownership within the Project area

NHPA establishes the statutory responsibilities of federal agencies to manage the cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the federal list of historic archaeological and other cultural resources that are significant in American history prehistory architecture archaeology engineering and culture and includes districts sites buildings structures objects and landscapes Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

The Protection of Historic and Cultural Propertiesrdquo (36 CFR Part 800 as revised) implements Section 106 by stating the requirements for inventorying cultural resources determining which are eligible for listing in the NRHP evaluating project effects on the properties and resolving adverse effects as implemented in consultation with oversight agencies Indian tribes and other interested parties

Historic properties consist of ldquoany prehistoric or historic district site building structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesrdquo (36 CFR 80016) The term includes artifacts records and remains that are related to and located in such properties It also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP

NEPA establishes a decision making process that provides for the systematic consideration of alternatives and examination of the direct indirect and cumulative

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

4

environmental impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action Under NEPA federal agencies must take into account impacts to historical resources or those resources that are eligible for the NRHP before a project is approved under the NEPA The NEPA process provides an avenue to facilitate compliance with other statutory and regulatory requirements (eg Section 106 reviews) but compliance with NEPA does not satisfy these other applicable requirements or vice-versa

AIRFA protects and preserves the right for American Indians Eskimos Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to exercise their traditional religions and allows them to possess and use sacred objects and to access traditional sites on federal lands for religious purposes

ARPA protects archaeological resources on federal and tribal land by prohibiting the removal of archaeological artifacts without a permit from the land managing agency Violation of the Act can result in civil and criminal penalties Federal agencies can issue permits under ARPA for archaeological investigations on lands under their jurisdiction

NAGPRA establishes regulations regarding the treatment of Native American graves human remains andor funerary objects sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony on federal and tribal lands Knowingly disturbing or removing gravesite remains or these objects is a felony under federal law and can result in criminal prosecution This law applies to land within the GPNF

Executive Order (EO) 13007 requires that agencies try to minimize damage to Native American sacred sites on federal land and try to avoid blocking access to such sites by traditional religious practitioners

22 Washington State Laws and Regulations Two Washington State laws provide protection for archaeological sites on public and private

lands including

RCW 2753 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) provides for the conservation preservation and protection of the states archaeological resources It combines certain elements of NHPA and ARPA but also provides specific penalties for the disturbance or destruction of archaeological materials on both public and private lands DAHP is the agency designated to carry out the functions of this law Related to this DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register a Washington-specific list of properties similar to the National Register that helps sustain the social cultural and economic well being of the states communities Properties listed in the National Register are automatically included in the Washington Heritage Register Violation of this law is a Class C felony

RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) makes the knowing destruction of American Indian graves and pictographs or petroglyphs a Class C felony This law provides that inadvertent disturbance of native Indian graves requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe The sale of any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have been taken from an Indian cairn or grave also is prohibited

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

5

23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes The USDA Forest Service (USFS) is a government agency with land management

responsibilities that include managing cultural resources USFS staff from the GPNF are consulted and included on the Projects Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) GPNF also issues Special Use permits under ARPA for archaeological work on its land The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the DAHP a position with both federal and state responsibilities for cultural resources is included in consultation and the CRC

The affected Tribes CIT and YN are participants in consultation and on the CRC During relicensing FERC delegated day-to-day Section 106 consultation with the Tribes and participating agencies to EN

30 Project Description

The Project consists of an intake canal a concrete drop structure (dam) and intake building on Lake Creek located about 424 feet downstream from the outlet of Packwood Lake a 21691-foot system of concrete pipe and tunnels a 5621-foot penstock a surge tank a powerhouse with a 26125 KW turbine generator a tailrace channel and transmission line

The source of water for the Project Packwood Lake is a lake that pre-existed the Project situated at an elevation of approximately 2857 feet above mean sea level (MSL) about 1800 feet above the powerhouse Water discharged from the Project is released to the Cowlitz River via a tailrace channel Power from the Project is delivered over an 8009-foot 69 KV transmission line to the Packwood substation

40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts

Much of the information on environmental and cultural contexts comes from the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006) for the Project and the documents on which that report is based as cited below

41 Environmental Context Packwood Lake is located within the GPNF about 8 miles (13 kilometers) west of the

Cascade Mountains crest Located at an elevation of 2857 feet (871 meters) above MSL the lake is surrounded by ridge tops reaching up to 4000 to 5000 feet (1200-1500 meters) The lake covers about 452 surface acres fed mainly by Upper Lake Creek which originates from the Packwood Glacier located on Old Snowy Mountain A few other small streams flow into the lake Lake Creek flows from the lake to the Cowlitz River about 54 miles (83 kilometers) to the northwest of the lake

A landslide from Snyder Mountain dating to about 1100 years ago blocked the valley and created the lake impoundment as it currently appears Erosion by alpine glaciers and interglacial

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

6

streams is responsible for the overall appearance of the Packwood Lake basin and Upper Lake Creek valley (EN 20047 28-29)

The areas bedrock consists primarily of bedded andesite breccia intrusive andesite and tuff with some inter-bedded basalt and mudflows Soils in the lake basin have formed on deposits of moderately coarse pumice glacial drift and andesite alluvium Holocene eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes (eg Mount Rainier Mount St Helens and Mount Mazama) have deposited tephra throughout the Packwood area These tephras where preserved can be found within the soils of the Project area (EN 200430) The soils are moderately deep (045 to 12 meters) stony and considered to be relatively unstable (McClure 1987c7)

The lake lies within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone with local trees including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurs along the lake and stream shores Understory species include sword fern (Polystichum munitum) licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) twinflower (Linnea borealis) and strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) (McClure 1987c10)

Mammals in the Project vicinity include deer (Odocoileus hemionus) elk (Cervus elaphus) black bear (Ursus americanus) mountain lion (Felis concolor) gray wolf (Canis lupis) marten (Martes americana) mink (Mustela vison) mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) river otter (Lutra canadensis) and Douglass squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Birds in the Project area include osprey eagles hawks great blue herons ducks and owls The lake supports a native population of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) (EN 2004100-103)

42 Prehistoric Context GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure has conducted studies of

the areas prehistory over many years In 1998 he published a paper on past human uses of the upper Cowlitz River watershed which included a summary of prehistory from about 7000 years ago through the late prehistoric period (about 1500 to 150 years ago) (McClure 1998) McClures research forms the basis for the information presented here

421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago

Archaeological remains show evidence of initial human use of the upper Cowlitz watershed beginning about 7000 years ago Pollen analysis suggests that more dry species such as oak were present during this early period (Barnosky 1981) The residents likely foraged for their foods and other materials using a broad range of resources and shifting their residences frequently as local resources became depleted Storage technology was probably not an important feature of this mobile settlement pattern

The most important resources appear to have been deer and fish Other resources included elk mountain sheep snowshoe hare mountain beaver and grouse along with such plant foods as elderberries huckleberries and hazelnuts Trade occurred with groups from other areas with materials including clamshell and Olivella shell beads from the coast obsidian stone from Oregon and other types of tool stone from the crest of the Cascade Range

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

7

422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago

A large eruptive phase (termed Smith Creek) of Mt St Helens dating 3900 to 3500 years ago appears to correspond to human abandonment of the area The eruptions of tephra may have killed trees and buried shrubs and herbs under as much as a meter-thick deposit of pumice with sediment choking area streams (McClure 1992) The loss of subsistence resources would have been catastrophic for the prehistoric population

423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago

By about 1500 years ago people returned to the area using previous sites as well as new locations Their subsistence strategy may have shifted toward the harvest processing and storage of key resources at the seasons and places they were most abundant The settlement pattern might have included the occupation of semi-permanent winter villages with warmer season use of temporary residential and procurementprocessing sites This environmental adaptation supported groups of Native American inhabitants who were encountered by the early Euro-American settlers

43 Native American Context In the early nineteenth century the Project area lay within the territory of the Taidnapam or

Upper Cowlitz Indians This territory included the Cowlitz River to its headwaters from about Mossyrock (Spier 1936) The Taidnapam spoke a dialect of the same language spoken by the Yakama Indians Taidnapam settlements were located along the upper Cowlitz River (called Tilapom according to Mary Kiona a Taidnapam elder living near Randle whose parents had been born and raised near Packwood [Kiona 195320 56 58 68-69]) and included chawachas at Skate Creek near present-day Packwood The leader of that village located at a little creek that comes in there near Packwood was Wach-q-uoy (Kiona 195334) Bouchard et al (1998293-294) discuss evidence indicating that the village at Packwood may not have been a winter village although the seasonal occupation and use of such a settlement could have changed as a result of Euro-American intrusion into the area

Another village and fishing locations were likely located along the river near Packwood (Bouchard et al 1998285) seasonal residential sites in the Packwood area were located at Muddy Fork and Hall Creek (Combs et al 1954) The Cowlitz sometimes met to trade with the Yakama Indians at the location of Packwood (Kiona 195331)

In her testimony for the Cowlitz Tribe before the Indians Claims Commission Mary Kiona mentioned the use of the uplands above the Cowlitz River

these people from Randle country they used to head up towards Packwood or else right straight up the range right there And the Indians that lived in Morton area would head up for those hills that ran down the Nisqually and the Cowlitz River and the high ranges that was the huckleberry patches and the hunting grounds and fishing (Kiona 195361)

Taidnapam use of the Packwood Lake basin is well documented Born in the late 1840s and a Taidnapam elder of the Packwood area Jim Yoke described the original name of the lake as Cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) Mary Kiona gave the Indian name for Goat Rocks as Osh Osh (Kiona

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

8

195317) The earliest known map of the lake shows the name as Ackushnesh Lake (Cunningham 1910)

Packwood Lake was important to local native people for its resident trout (aywitcin or aytmiacuten according to Mary Kiona) Information on Indian use of the lake comes from a taped interview with Mary Kiona held by Martha Hardy in September 1964 and August 1965 and deposited with the GPNF Ms Kiona reportedly visited the lake to obtain fish she states in the 1964 tape that her fatherrsquos mother was very familiar with fishing at the lake probably during the period from about 1820-1850 (McClure 1987b10) Jim Yoke reports that the Indians caught the trout as they entered the small streams that flow into the lake during spawning Taidnapam use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more seasonal residential site locations (McClure 1987b1012)

Fishing likely involved the use of small weirs or basket traps Also the people dammed a stream and diverted the water through a little ditch Where the steam bed dried they collected the fish (McClure 1987b12) Racks were set up over fires to dry the fish some were also skewered and roasted (McClure 1987c)

In late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries (Irwin 1994 McClure 1987b citing Kiona 1965) Huckleberry patches were probably located on south-facing slopes and ridges around the lake Mary Kiona stated (as translated by Joyce Eyle) in the 1965 interview

They used to go to Packwood Lake and they used to pick huckleberries there a long time ago and different ones from around here Theres a lot that shes forgotten their names that used to go up there and pick huckleberries (McClure 1987b13)

Taidnapam oral traditions recorded in the early twentieth century include two variations of a legend regarding the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Jim Yoke stated

Five men came from the east In the country of the pcwanawapam (Ellensburg or Kittitas Indians) there is a lake named katsis (Kachess) On their way they came down to the water at that place to bathe They lay on their bellies in water shallow and up to their knees Again and again to whatever lake they came they did the very same thing to all of them They had fish they carried them along

Then they reached this lake here (Packwood L) They lay on their bellies under the water It was rather deep They released those fish there they were so large about twelve inches in length five of them They filled the lake with them Douglas firs came there There was an island at the end of the lake about two or three acres in size They made little streams flow into the lake there Those little trout would enter them for my people to catch

My ancestors came there They made soft baskets One day when the sun was high but towards evening one of them cried out and asked My anus is this big (ie I am hungry) I am hungry Feed me The next day the trout came in the morning laBeBeBeBeBe a great many trout At first the people would go there and that water would rise just like the ocean (tide) They seized the eldest the one who made it that way (tides) because they did not want the people to go there They sent him far away They

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

9

told him You are bad Our people will arrive here and they will catch fish in quiet unafraid (Jacobs 1934231-232)

Similarly McClure (1987b12) reports a description Mary Kiona gave in the 1964-65 taped interview of a ritual that her relatives performed at the lake

Them old people used to go up there and camp And they make a basket when they want to fish And thats why they go up there Her specially her dads mother Shed go up there and make that basket and she fill it up with the leaves fill that basket up full Its a big baskethellipyou see that basket hanging there They made it something like that They made it out of cedar roots It would be something like that one only coarser big weave big one Wouldnt take so long to make big one Just weave it up

Now when she made this basket and put these leaves in ithellipshed go by where the streams running down and shed go down and talk to it That was old time people She go to talk to that lake I guess what everybody call it She pour that thing way down that way down that way that stream to get it all and tell em Bring me fish cause Im gettin hungry Bring me fish like that See my big belly now how hungry I am now my stomachs empty you call the basket My Stomachs Empty shed be holding the basket The next day you see all them trout

Lucy Tumwaters version of trout in the lake has similarities to that of Jim Yoke and Mary Kiona

Long time ago fore white man fore Indian dey five sistehs this sisteh (counting on her fingers) and this sisteh and this sisteh and this sisteh and this little sisteh dey came awful long way over mountains and dey all carry baskets of fish When dey come to lake little sisteh say Is tired I wants res Oder sistehs say No we don wam stop here we goin on to big water Little sisteh say Is tired I goin down in lake to res So little sisteh go down in lake and empty her basket her back so tired carrying heavy basket and when she down in lake her hair spread out on top of water Oder sistehs see how pretty her hair look so dey all go down and empty their baskets and spread their hair out on top of water too Bine-by oh awful long time Indian come He hungry nothin to eat no berries no fish nothin Indian starving He stan on high rock by lake and see sistehs down in water He call out Sistehs Is hungry I want fish Sistehs say Go down where little creek comes out lake ndash throw leaves as many leaves as fish on top of water den fish come So Indian he go down he throw awful leaves in little creek and den he gets fish just as many fish as leaveshellipI didn use to believe it but my fahder and grandfahder say it so Dey been there sistehs give dem fish (McClure 1987b13 quoting Anonymous 1909mdashprobably Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909)

It is not clear from these accounts whether throwing out leaves refers to the use of poison to harvest fish or whether it indicates the number of fish that were desired If poison was used these are the only accounts identified so far for the upper Cowlitz watershed

44 Euro-American Context In 1861 James Longmire and William Packwood were the first non-natives to travel into the

area (Delacy 1861) William Packwood is credited with the Euro-American discovery of Coal Creek and Lake Creek in 1869 (Combs et al 1954) The decline of traditional use at Packwood

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

10

Lake seems to coincide with the initial period of Euro-American settlement in the upper Cowlitz River Big Bottom area near Randle By 1900 local settlers were attracted to the lake for recreation and pleasure as well as to catch large amounts of fish (Combs et al 1954) General Land Office (GLO) survey maps prepared in 1904 and 1918 (US Surveyor General 1904 1918) for Township 13 North Range 9 East do not show historical features in the APE No records for Township 13 North Range 10 East are on file at the University of Washington or through the OregonWashington Bureau of Land Management Land Records website

In 1906 the Portland Railway Light and Power Company (now Portland General Electric) started preliminary surveys for construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Packwood Lake The Valley Development Company (VDC) ultimately planned to divert water from a number of area streams for storage in Packwood Lake and to construct a 100-foot-high dam near the outlet of the lake with a flume to transport water to a generating plant near the present community of Packwood Although there was initial speculation about the use of the power for a possible railroad across White Pass the company planned to sell electricity to the City of Tacoma

Construction began in 1910 but was subsequently suspended when City of Tacoma officials determined the project was infeasible (Combs et al 1954) Construction included a trail to the lake and a temporary power plant (dismantled and removed to Portland in 1920) that was put in on Snyder Creek The temporary plant was to provide electricity to the construction camp located on the outskirts of Packwood then called Lewis in honor of the VDCs president Also in 1910 four log buildings were constructed near the outlet to Packwood Lake on the southwest side of Lake Creek near the foot bridge a cookhouse two bunkhouses and an office building All supplies and equipment were brought in on packhorses (Combs et al 1954)

Early Forest Ranger William Sethe (193728) stated that until 1905 trails consisted chiefly of old Indian trails with an occasional trail built by prospectors or surveyors Shortly after that the Valley Development Company constructed many miles of trail in their pursuit of waterpower development Sethe set the period at 1909-1910 while Liddle (1990np) gave the dates as 1907-1911 when the VDC employed a large crew of men to build trails roads and a tramway

McKay (1990anp) observes that the wide level trail grades east of Packwood result from the VDC 1910-1912 flume line grades and that other trails that appear on maps dating from 1913 through the present are USFS trails As more roads extended into the uplands trailheads also moved While the 1903 GLO plat shows no trails heading uphill from Lewis (the former name of Packwood) the 1913 Rainier Classification map shows one that crossed the tramway at about 1600 ft elevation and connected with the Packwood Lake trail at about 2000 ft By 1924 another spur trail ran from the confluence of Snyder and Hall creeks up to that elevation when USFS Road 1260 was constructed a short way up Snyder Mountain in the 1940s the trailhead for the Packwood Lake Trail moved up the hill from the ranger station to the area of the current spur road 126030

Liddle (1990np) summarizes historical information on trails in the vicinity of the Project area as follows

78 (Packwood Lake Trail) Appears on maps from 1924-1940

83 (5030) Snyder Mountain appears on maps from 1924-66 maintained until 1950

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

11

86 Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail) 1914-54 Fragments can still be located on the ground Upper elevations still maintained [Note that an unidentified trail fragment reported earlier by Wyman Ross also was thought to be part of this trail]

Way Trail (unnumbered) between Johnson Creek Trail and Trail 83 86 and 87 Appears on maps from 1911-1954 It is assumed that the trail was built by surveyors for the Valley Development Company (VDC) between 1907-11 and this route along the 2000 foot contour was the proposed route which water was to be piped from Johnson Creek to the proposed reservoir at Snyder Lake The proposed undertaking was abandoned but the trail was maintained until the 40s

An aboriginal trail must have led from the Cowlitz River Valley into Packwood Lake because Indians used the lake during the prehistoric and historic-period Early historic trails often followed Indian trails McKay (1990anp) provides a detailed historical analysis of the Packwood Lake Trail noting conflicting evidence about the first trail that the VDC used to access the area for its proposed waterpower development

Sherman Combs (son of Walter Combs the based camp construction foreman)hellipsaid that the VDC rebuilt this trail and that later the USFS maintained it (Packwood Community Study Proceedings 1954) William Sethe however says that R Green built the Packwood Lake trail in approximately 1907 and according to Herbert Cooper of Morton John Snyder built a trail to Packwood Lake that was a replacement of the original Indian trail that had existed many years before (PCSP)

McKay goes on to note that the Forest Services 1939 historical sketches report that lists the Packwood Lake Trail as having been built in 1908 by a private party (USDA Forest Service 19397) She quotes a 1907 Chehalis Bee-Nugget newspaper article of July 5 as reporting that SA Davis of Cora stated that trails had been cut into Packwood Lake McKay also states that Combs recollected that in 1909 John Snyder received a contract from VDC to rebuild the last four miles of the Packwood Lake trail eliminating the part of the older trail that traversed the top of Snyder Mountain

Local residents and others used the Packwood Lake Trail to access the lake for recreation in the summer about 1936 an average number of six hundred people per season hike or ride horseback to the lake (USFS 1936np) In July 1962 a new Packwood Lake Trail (78) was opened to the public a mile shorter and less steep than the previous one This trail leaves the parking lot at the end of Road 1260 (McKay 1990anp) Liddle (1990) identifies the current Trail 78 as the original Packwood Lake Trail The historic trail is actually downslope and is maintained as the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (74) The first 15 miles are accessible to vehicles and designated as the Pipeline Bench Road (Forest Service Road 1260-066)

In 1917 the Forest Service established a public campground at Packwood Lake and at the same time assumed ownership of the VDC holdings at the lake The Forest Service used a former VDC cabin as a seasonal ranger station During the summer a forest guard was stationed at the lake to conduct fire patrols trail maintenance and general recreation management activities (USDA Forest Service 1936) For many years horseback rangers and fire patrolmen used the cabin as a staging area for trips into the backcountry of the Goat Rocks Wilderness and Cascade Mountains (USDA Forest Service 1993) Following construction of the Packwood Lake

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

12

Hydroelectric Project in 1963 the Forest Service built a new guard station at the lake The other three log buildings no longer exist one building was destroyed by fire and two were dismantled in the 1930s (McClure 1987b 2004b)

The popularity of the lake among anglers led to the development of a tent camp resort near the outlet in 1921 The first proprietor of the resort MO Higgins in addition to providing meals rented handmade cedar boats In 1935 Ralph and Agnes Neeley and Charles Sawyer purchased the concession In 1936 they constructed a two-story cedar lodge complete with store kitchen and dining area They also constructed a floating dock and a boathouse and had new rowboats packed to the lake on the backs of mules (McClure 1987c Neeley and Neeley 1968) They built 11 small wood cabins and rented them to overnight guests Electricity to the resort originally came from a water-driven generator on Lake Creek

The concession changed hands several times from 1946 until the Neeleys returned in 1965 (Cardwell 1966) They ran the concession again from 1965 to 1967 when they leased the concession to Virginia Hunter (Morton Journal 1974) In 1972 when Hunter owned the resort the main lodge the utility room and the boiler building were damaged by fire (Chehalis Chronicle 1972) In 1974 when the Neeleys again took over the concession they removed most of the old cabins and replaced some of the old boats with fiberglass boats (Lange 1977) The boat concession with boathouse and dock continued until 1991

50 Identification of Historic Properties

The identification of historic properties involves defining an area of potential effects consulting with interested Tribes and agencies conducting background research and implementing field survey to develop an inventory of resources This work concludes with the application of criteria for National Register eligibility to recommend which are eligible for listing The following sections summarize this work which is discussed in the Projects Inventory Report (Dampf and Thompson 2006)

51 Area of Potential Effects A projects APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist (36 CFR 80016d) For the Project the APE consists of the land within the Project boundary At Packwood Lake the Project boundary is at elevation 2860 feet MSL which encompasses 3 vertical feet above the lakes usual summer water level Additional areas include the water conveyance system that extends from Packwood Lake to the town of Packwood and the sites of the powerhouse tailrace and transmission line EN believes that the Project does not affect cultural resources outside the Project boundary Figure 2 shows the location of the APE

52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group Several meetings and a fieldtrip with tribal and agency representatives took place during the

cultural resource work for relicensing the Project in 2005 The Projects relicensing CRC

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

13

included representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP EN FERC GPNF and consultant firm HRA Cultural resources also were discussed briefly during larger agency meetings on relicensing The CRC members discussed the Study Plan and the draft Inventory Report with discussion topics including the methods schedule and GPNF special use permit for archaeological fieldwork the confidential nature of traditional cultural property (TCP) and archaeological site information and the curation of collected artifacts The CIT representative introduced a topic of continuing concern to him the desire to protect archaeological sites near Packwood Lake from potential vandalism by closing public access to the lake during the fall draw-down period CRC members visited the archaeological fieldwork during survey of the Packwood Lake APE to discuss the methods and results of the inventory work

The identification of potential TCPs also took into consideration National Register Bulletin No 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990) The work involved discussions with tribal representatives This Study Plan anticipated that the CIT and YN representatives would obtain any tribal information on TCPs that they wanted to have considered for Project relicensing

Tribe members often are reluctant to disclose the location of potential TCPs due to their confidential and sometimes sacred nature Disclosure of these locations can be a violation of their sacredness and disclosure of resource gathering locations could lead to overuse and possible depletion of a particular resource The YN representative to the CRC stated in one meeting that the Tribe had an oral history of their use of the Cowlitz River area and would treat any information they possessed on TCPs as confidential If the Tribes had mentioned the existence of TCPs at the Project but not their specific locations EN would have worked with the tribal representatives to identify the general issues and concerns that the Tribes might have regarding potential impacts of the Project upon resources known to the Tribes and worked to develop agreeable measures to alleviate these concerns

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

14

Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

15

As discussed in Section 43 above the Project is located within the territory of the Taidnapam or Upper Cowlitz Indians Taidnapam elder Jim Yoke gave the original name of Packwood Lake as cuyuik (Yoke 1934231) and an early (Cunningham 1910) map provides another Indian name Ackushnesh Lake Indian people harvested the lakes resident trout (called aywitcin or aytmiacuten by Mary Kiona although Lewy Costima [1934] gives the name ashchinsh for trout and this name is more similar to the 1910 mapped name for the lake) and recorded two oral traditions in the early twentieth century about the introduction of trout to the lake (Chehalis Bee-Nugget 1909 Jacobs 1934) Trout fishing roasting and drying occurred from late May to early July (McClure 1987b) and in late summer native people also visited the lake to pick huckleberries located in the area (Irwin 1994 Kiona 1965) Indian use of the lake in the period ca 1820-1850 included the occupancy of one or more temporary residential and use locations (McClure 1987b1012)

The Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) conducted a study to identify Native American traditional religious use areas and resources in the Cascade Mountains and foothills including the Upper Cowlitz Indian area (Carpenter 1981) Cowlitz tribal member and then-tribal chair Roy Wilson served as correspondent for information on Cowlitz Indian practices His results indicated that most of his informants did not have knowledge of the old religious ways did not themselves participate in the spirit quest nor did they remember specific sacred areas (Carpenter 1981 citing Wilsons work)

The GPNF contracted during 1992 to 1995 for a study of traditional uses of the Forest (Hajda et al 1995) The work aimed to define patterns of traditional use and document the use of specific locations Yakama tribal members participated in the study conducting many of the 30 oral history interviews Persons interviewed included both Yakama and Cowlitz tribal members The study identified Packwood Lake as one of 256 specific traditional use locations (Hajda et al 1995)

Mr Johnson Meninick an elder and Manager of the YNs Cultural Resources Program provided the Tribe with an oral history statement for the Lewis River and Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project relicensings (undated but preceding August 6 1999) Mr Meninicks comments included the upper Cowlitz River area where he recalled his family and others fishing for salmon in the Randle or Mossyrock vicinity during his childhood Hunting included the area of Mt Rainier Mr Meninick stated that Indians had used the Cowlitz River area for thousands of years and maintained rights to the area He noted that the Taidnapam band was related to the Yakama Nation and the latter is concerned about salmon restoration in the Cowlitz River

An oral history interview that YN Cultural Resources Program staff member Clifford Washines (now Casseseka) conducted with Wapt Bassett on May 7 1998 showed that Mr Bassett had heard stories of Indian fishing along the Cowlitz River although he didnt know the exact locations

Work with the Tribes and research indicated Indian places names for Packwood Lake and Indian use of the area that includes the Project No specific locations of TCPs were identified

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

16

53 Background Research GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager Richard McClure of the GPNF summarized survey and resource information for the APE (McClure 2004b) HRA staff conducted additional archival research to obtain more detail The research focused on identifying previous studies and information useful for understanding the local environments the culture history of the area the additional types of resources that might be found and their locations To guide the field survey researchers used the background information to develop a map showing the archaeological sensitivity of places within the APE The information also was used in the prehistoric ethnographic and historic-period context (see Section 4 above) for evaluation of the Projects archaeological and historical resources The background research examined published and unpublished written map and photographic sources The places contacted or visited include the affected Tribes DAHP GPNF and the University of Washington Suzzallo Library Microforms and Special Collections

54 Field Inventory To guide the archaeological survey the archaeologists developed a list of sensitivity criteria and prepared a map (Figure 3) showing the high medium and low probability areas for containing prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources based on information from predictive model criteria for locations within the MBSNF and the GPNF (Hearne and Hollenbeck 1996 Hollenbeck 1985 McClure 2004b) The archaeologists used background research including ethnographies histories aerial photographs and historical maps of the Project vicinity In addition the GPNF ArchaeologistHeritage Program Manager provided information on previously recorded prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources located within the Project area vicinity

The archaeological probability criteria were based on environmental characteristics ethnographic and historic data and the distribution of previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area vicinity

High probability areas are defined as areas satisfying one of the following criteria

1) On generally flat ground (0 to lt10) 2) With sediment accumulation (eg along streams and lake shorelines) 3) Located within 100 meters of a permanent water source (eg lakes springs or

streams or rivers) 4) Located within 100 meters of a previously recorded archaeological site 5) Located within 50 meters of environmentally sensitive areas such as talus slopes and

boulder fields (ie potential indicators of rock-feature sites such as mounds pits walls alignments burials hunting blinds etc)

6) Located within 50 meters of documented GLO features or established transportation corridors (trails passes rivers or major streams) or

7) Located in biologically diverse environments (eg within 50 meters of wetland margin) or in areas that appear to have been biologically diverse in the past

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

17

Figure 3 Sensitivity Map

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

18

Medium probability areas are represented by one or more of the following criteria 1) On gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) 2) Located within 50 meters of an intermittent water source 3) Appear to have been in the past but not now biologically diverse (eg old burns

now in later succession) on gently to moderately sloping ground (gt10 to lt35) or

4) Having no associations with any high or low probability criteria Low probability areas are defined as steep-sloped areas (gt35) that have no associations with any high or medium probability criteria

The archaeologists conducted an intensive survey taking into consideration the survey methods of the GPNF Pedestrian transects were spaced at 5-meter intervals in areas of high site probability and at 20-meter intervals in areas of medium and low probability Sampling was to include 100 of high probability areas 50 of medium probability areas and 10-20 of low probability areas Field archaeologists used shovels or trowels to clear or scrape 20-centimeter by 20-centimeter areas of duff at 20-meter intervals within areas of high probability to examine the mineral soil for evidence of artifacts features soil discoloration and so on Thus shovel scrapes were placed along every fourth transect in high probability areas (5-meter intervals) to maintain 20-meter spacing

Archaeologists excavated shovel probes (approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and up to a depth of about 50 centimeters) only in high probability areas on generally flat ground with sediment accumulation to search for archaeological remains Augers were used as needed to reach deeper alluvial areas Shovel probes were not placed in all high probability areas because while some areas such as marshes near the western shore of Packwood Lake are high probability (eg areas likely to contain culturally modified trees) but conditions are unsuitable for placing shovel probes or scrapes To avoid creating safety hazards subsurface survey was conducted adjacent to but not within existing roads or system trails that traverse high probability areas

When the fieldwork encountered cultural evidence the archaeologists excavated and screened (through 18-inch mesh) shovel test probes to sterile soil along radiating transects to define the horizontal boundaries and depth of the find area The survey crew recorded the methods and results of work with notes maps photographs and drawings as appropriate

55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility To qualify for listing in the National Register sites must possess integrity and meet one of

the four National Register criteria which are codified in 36 CFR 604

The quality of significance in American history architecture archaeology engineering and culture is present in districts sites buildings structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association and

a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history or

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

19

b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction or

d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

In addition to these criteria properties can have other cultural values Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that communitys history and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community Therefore a property may also be significant if it has traditional or ethnographic significance because of its ties to the cultural past of Native Americans

Table 1 lists the sites reported or encountered by the survey to lie within or very close to the Projects APE In addition to the sites number and name the table shows whether it is recorded to be inside or outside the APE and whether the survey encountered site remains If the site was encountered the table summarizes its status for listing in the National Register

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

20

Table 1 Cultural resources in or near the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effects

USFS Number Name InsideOutside APE NHRP Significance

13102115 Packwood Lake Outlet Site 45LE285 Inside Eligible 13102103 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar Outside Eligible

13092303 Valley Development Company telephone line

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13092304 Valley Development Company tramway hoist house Just outside Not Applicable

13092305 Valley Development Company road and flume bed Outside Not Applicable

13092401 Valley Development Company roadflume bridge

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Valley Development Company Trail Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

13102803 Cuyuik Site 45LE296 Inside but not encountered

Recommended Not Eligible

13102101 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (Valley Development Company cabin remains) Just outside Eligible

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Inside

Not Individually Eligible Could be Eligible as Part of a Multiple Property Submission

Packwood Lake Trail (Trail 74) currently maintained as the Pipeline Bench Road and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail

Inside Not Eligible

13102102 Packwood Lake Resort Site Only boat dock was inside was removed amp not encountered

Not eligible

13102804 Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island ndash prehistoric isolated artifact

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Lily Basin Trail (Hager Creek Trail [Trail 86]) fragments in lower elevations below maintained portion

Inside but not encountered Not Applicable

Unknown trail fragment reported by Wyman Ross possible part of Trail 86 Outside Not Applicable

13102801 Bear Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable 13102802 Game Department Cabin Site Outside Not Applicable 13103301 Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap Outside Not Applicable

551 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites consist of the Packwood Lake Outlet Site and the Cuyuik Site discussed in the following paragraphs

Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285) Archaeological site 45LE285 a stratified site located at the outlet of Lake Creek with

occupation dating between 500 and 1100 years ago is located inside the APE (Figure 4) The site has previously been determined eligible for listing in the National Register because it has

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

21

yielded and has the potential to yield more information of importance to prehistory (McClure 1987b)

Figure 4 View of 45LE285

Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)

USFS archaeologists Chris Jensen and Janet Liddle observed a lithic scatter near Baker Creek that drains Mosquito Lake and enters Packwood Lake (Jensen and Liddle 1987) The assemblage at site 45LE296 (USFS No 13102803 Cuyuik) collected from a 6-meter width of eroding lakeshore bank on the east side of the lake consists of 82 pieces of debitage and five formed tool fragments Raw materials include jasper (n=53) chalcedony (n=26) and chert (n=8) Debitage includes 35 interior flakes (4 are bifacial thinning flakes) 5 primary decortication flakes 35 flake fragments 6 pieces of shatter and a single potlid flake The formed tools include 3 projectile point fragments a biface perform fragment and a uniface (scraper) Jensen and Liddle (19872) noted site disturbances such as bank failure and shoreline erosion of the lakeshore terrace as a result of lake level fluctuations Although Dubeacutersquos (2005) erosion survey of the drawdown zone did not identify severe erosion at this location the 2005 inventory survey compared the 1987 site sketch map with field observations noted recession of the shoreline since 1987 and could not locate any remains associated with 45LE296

The presence of shoreline recession and absence of lithic material indicate that 45LE296 lacks integrity the site may have been very small with low artifact density Because integrity of

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

22

location and association are absent the site does not meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register This site is within the APE

The Project archaeological survey did not encounter the Packwood Lake [Agnes] Island prehistoric isolated artifact (USFS No 13102804) previously inventoried by GPNF

552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites

Historic-period archaeological sites consist of the Packwood Lake Trail several Valley Development Company (VDC) sites and others discussed below

Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail) The integrity of the Packwood Lake Trail was compromised during construction of the

Project and as a result was relocated in 1962 as Trail 78 The Pipeline Bench Road (USFS Road 1260-066) and the Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail (Trail 74) were built by the Project For linear features such as a trail to be eligible for the National Register a majority of the resource must retain integrity The trail was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register because approximately 75 percent of the original trail was removed during construction of the pipeline and therefore lacks integrity

Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail) Several VDC sites have been reported for the Project area The only VDC site encountered

very close to the APE consisted of the hoist house remains (USFS No 13092304) located at the edge of the surge tank APE Because this site is located just outside the APE its National Register-eligibility is not relevant to the Project

Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites Other sites reported to be in the APE were not encountered including the Packwood Lake Resort Site (USFS No13102102) and the Lily Basin (Hager Creek) Trail (86) The National Register-eligibility of these sites is not relevant to the Project Four other sites an unknown trail fragment the Bear Creek Fishtrap the State Game Department Cabin Site and the Upper Lake Creek Fishtrap are outside the APE and their National Register-eligibility also is not relevant to the Project

553 Buildings and Structures

The only buildingstructure in the APE consists of the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley are historic in age and maintain integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling and association (Figures 5 and 6) They did not however appear to be individually significant examples of such construction or function types and are no longer functioning in their historic manner USGS Gaging Station No 1422500 is not known to be uniquely associated with settlement or industry in the area or region and would not meet National Register Criterion A It does not appear to be associated with the

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

23

life of a significant person (Criterion B) nor has it yielded or it is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) It is possible that the gaging station may be eligible as part of a multiple property submission of similar facilities in the region (Criterion C) but such an evaluation was well beyond the scope of the Project relicensing especially since the Project is expected to have no effect on the structures The site is mentioned because EN needs to coordinate with GPNF to ensure that the Project does not affect the buildingstructure

Figure 5 Front Faccedilade of the USGS Gaging Station

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

24

Figure 6 Cableway Trolley

56 Historic Properties Within the APE the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) is eligible for listing in the National Register The USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley is not considered to be individually eligible but could prove to be part of a future multiple property listing if enough similar properties with integrity remain in the region Figure 7 shows the locations of these two properties

60 Potential Effects of Relicensing

The Project contributes to the adverse effects that are acting on the Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) but it is not expected to affect the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley Waves breaking along the Packwood Lake shoreline result in erosion in the vicinity of 45LE285 Wave erosion between 2849 ft MSL and 28585 ft MSL is partially Project related while wave erosion between 2854 ft MSL and 2860 ft MSL would occur along the lake shorelines without the Project The Project holds the lake elevation at 2857 ft MSL plusminus 6 inches for a longer period of time than the lake would be at that elevation naturally These Project-induced and natural effects are interrelated and cannot be distinguished There is insufficient information available to calculate the rate of shoreline change in the vicinity of 45LE285 The Projectrsquos log boom across the inlet canal and the accumulated woody debris in the area provide some protection to 45LE285 from wave erosion A contributing non-Project effect in the vicinity of the

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

25

archaeological site is the recreational use of the shoreline that causes trampling and shoreline erosion

It is possible that looting could take place if archaeological artifacts are exposed at the outlet site Similarly the USGS Gaging Station could deteriorate andor could be vandalized In addition ground-disturbing activities might be needed during the term of the new license which could encounter and disturb archaeological materials

70 General Management Measures

General management measures include establishing management goals principles and standards appointing an EN Historic Preservation Coordinator (HPC) managing cultural resources data confidentially conducting consultation and meetings with agencies and Tribes training Project personnel providing for the curation of artifacts and disposition of any human remains and preparing reports of activities conducted under this HPMP These measures are discussed in the following sections

71 Management Goals Principles and Standards EN filed its Final Application for New License (FLA) of the Project on February 24 2008

FERC issued a new license for the Project on October 11 2018

EN in consultation with the following agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture ndash Forest Services (USFS) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN) file the Historic Properties Management Plan with FERC on August 30 2007 in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA)executed for the Project on October 26 2009

Under section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking This generally requires FERC to consult with the SHPO to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects

To satisfy these responsibilities FERC executed a PA with the SHPO on October 26 2009 and invited EN USFS CIT and YN to concur with the stipulations of the PA EN USFS and CIT signed the PA as concurring parties The PA requires EN to implement the HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this Project Execution of the PA demonstrates FERCrsquos compliance with section 106 of the NHPA (see language below)

FERC License Article 406 Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan The licensee must implement the ldquoProgrammatic Agreement among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by a License Issuing to Energy Northwest for the Continued Operation of the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project in Lewis County Washington (FERC No 2244)rdquo executive on October 26 2009 including but not limited to the Historic

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

26

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project filed with the Commission on August 30 2007 as required by the US Forest Service condition 18

In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated the licensee must obtain approvals from or make modifications requested by the Commission and the Washington State Preservation Office where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so

USFS Condition No 18 ndash Cultural Resources The Licensee must completely and fully comply with all provisions of the August 30 2007 Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as filed with the Commission and any approved revision of that Plan throughout the length of the new License The HPMP provides for the protection management and interpretation of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Project and for mitigation of Project-related impacts to historic properties

EN is responsible through its FERC operating license obligations for the stewardship of historic properties within the Project boundary EN company will responsibly manage National Register-listed and eligible properties affected by the Project to the extent feasible within the requirements of continuing Project operation and the need to balance stewardship of other sensitive resources in an integrated fashion Effective management of historic properties is founded on the goals principles and standards discussed below for archaeological sites and conducted through management measures during the term of the license EN will develop principles and standards for historic buildingsstructures and TCPs if such resources are encountered during the term of the new license

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

27

Figure 7 Location of 45LE285 and USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

28

711 Goals

ENs goals for managing National Register properties include the following

Ensure continued safe and normal operation of the Project while maintaining the integrity of historic properties within the Project boundary

Conduct consultation with the affected Tribes and DAHP to resolve Project-related adverse effects on historic properties within the Project APE

Maintain confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic properties especially archaeological sites and any traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future

Ensure consistency with federal state and local regulations and local resource management plans

Maintain coordination and compatibility of historic property management with other resource goals such as water use and quality aquatic and terrestrial resources recreation aesthetics and land management as well as Project maintenance and operations

Provide good stewardship of historic properties by coordinating with GPNF the monitoring of vulnerable National Register resources supporting appropriate enhancement opportunities and encouraging staff and public awareness of historic properties and

Provide cost-effective measures for historic properties that balance with the management of other Project resources

712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties

ENs principles for managing archaeological properties working within the scope of performing normal operations and maintenance are

Maintain the confidentiality of information on the nature and location of archaeological sites

Treat undetermined sites that may be discovered in the future as if they are National Register-eligible until they receive evaluation

Strive to avoid adverse effects on National Register-listed or eligible archaeological sites resulting from Project activities

Protect sites using an acceptable and feasible treatment method

Consider data recovery if avoidance and protection are not feasible and

Practice vigilance about vandalism to archaeological resources

EN will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as well as follow the standards regarding the treatment of archaeological resources developed by the ACHP

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

29

and published in the Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook (ACHP 1980 see also ACHP 1999)

72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator EN will manage historic properties on the Project in compliance with applicable FERC and

other federal and state cultural resource laws and regulations ENrsquos HPC is the Project Supervisor or another person appointed by EN The HPC has oversight responsibility for historic properties and cultural resources related to the Project with duties that include the following

Implementation of the HPMP

Compilation organization maintenance and protection of the confidentiality as needed of information on the Projects historic properties This includes but is not limited to inventory forms and maps cultural resource inventory reports and maps archaeological sensitivity maps and any EN cultural resource and geographic information system (GIS) databases

Coordination of review of potential effects of Project operation maintenance and construction activities on historic properties and maintenance of records that document review and decision-making

Preparation and administration of training materials and reports

bull Coordination of and participation in consultation and meetings with the affected Tribes and DAHP

Provision for suggestions of appropriate cultural resource information in programs for public interpretation and education and for staff training

Provision for curation of any artifacts and documentation that may be collected

The HPC need not be a cultural resource professional but will attend basic and periodic training in federal and state cultural resource workshops andor conferences held by professional organizations that addresses issues related to the Projects regulatory compliance including such topics as the Section 106 compliance process

The HPC will work cooperatively with the cultural resources staff of the affected Tribes and GPNF as well as qualified consulting archaeologists and historians for consultation and assistance whenever necessary The HPC will employ cultural resource professionals meeting the Professional Qualification Standards outlined in Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs as needed to conduct cultural resources work for the Project

73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy Information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure (National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) EN protects information on archaeological sites from public disclosure but shares it with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN respects the

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

30

Tribes concerns for the confidentiality of information about TCPs and will not disclose publicly any information it may come to possess although this information would be shared if necessary with DAHP FERC and GPNF Location information would be available only at a general level for management use in avoiding impacts EN also will not disclose to the public any information related to Indian burials or remains should such information come to ENrsquos companyrsquos attention

The HPC will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information that EN possesses and will address the status of confidentiality in the Projects periodic report on cultural resources

74 Consultation and Meetings EN will implement the HPMP measures to manage the Projects historic properties in

consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF as appropriate depending on landownership within the Project boundary Management measures address the effects identified in Section 6 as well as such long-term issues as monitoring operations and maintenance Project developments archaeological site protection curation and interpretation and education EN will consult with the parties regarding archaeological review of Project activities

Routine meetings will not be scheduled but meetings will be held if requested by a representative of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will arrange additional meetings as needed to address specific issues or problems that may arise

EN will contact representatives of the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for meetings to discuss the status of historic properties management at the Project plans for management activities during the upcoming period and potential future modification of management measures EN will provide information on the dates of planned historic properties management activities at the Project so that the affected Tribes and GPNF may participate in or visit the work as desired Upcoming ground disturbing activities for maintenance operations or Project improvements will be discussed and the affected Tribes and GPNF will be consulted

75 Personnel Training To ensure that HPMP measures are properly implemented EN will provide training for staff

members in key positions including the HPC (as discussed in Section 72 above) EN personnel making capital decisions about Project activities Plan operators construction supervisors and inspectors and supervisors of field staff The HPC will consult with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF for development and review of draft outlines and training materials

Affected staff members will receive training about HPMP measures including procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological or human remains and measures for addressing urgent conditions that could affect historic properties compliance with applicable regulations and the concerns of the Tribes associated with archaeological materials and human remains

EN will require that Project personnel who supervise inspect or independently perform ground-disturbing activities that may impact historic properties be informed about identifying protecting and preserving historic properties The HPC will arrange for those construction-associated personnel supervising to receive a brief onsite orientation on cultural resource

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

31

sensitivity for the work site The training will include information on the types nature and importance of historic properties that could be encountered the concerns of the Tribes and cultural resource professionals about these properties the damage that can occur from construction activities and unauthorized artifact collection and the procedures of ENs Inadvertent Discovery Plan The training will take place for each new construction project team

EN will arrange for training of its staff members involved in Project operations maintenance and ground disturbance activities Information will include the

Types nature and importance of cultural resources

Concerns of the affected Indian Tribes

Damage that can occur from unauthorized collecting digging erosion and construction

Characteristics of undesirable behavior

Locations where undesirable behavior may take place and where unauthorized individuals are not to be present or to linger

What to do upon noticing undesirable behavior

How to coordinate with GPNF staff

Whom and how to call for help and

What to do if you find an artifact or site or someone reports one to you

The trainings will be varying lengths depending on the subject matter and will take place annually in conjunction with ongoing trainings New staff members will receive the training within six months of assuming their duties

76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains EN will provide for the curation of artifact collections and documentation resulting from

archaeological fieldwork that is done for the Project and within the Project boundary at an existing qualified facility on an interim or long-term basis GPNF will determine the curation of materials coming from its lands For private lands EN will consult with the affected Tribes and DAHP about curation and will consider using the existing YN facility or one belonging to CIT if such is developed during the term of the license EN will compare the costs and other conditions of tribal facilities with others that may be located in the region

EN will see that artifact collections and documentation are suitably prepared for curation in consideration of 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections) for collections from GPNF Copies of paper and digital documentation will be of archival quality to provide for stability during curation

EN will follow NAGPRA provisions for burial-associated artifacts and collections that come from GPNF land Decisions about the disposition of human remains will be made in consultation

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

32

with the affected Tribes following NAGPRA provisions for GPNF land and DAHP guidance for private lands

77 Reporting The HPC will prepare a brief Report on Historic Properties every three years to provide the

affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF with information summarizing activities that potentially impacted historic properties and management measures exercised over the past period The report will also outline planned activities for the upcoming period Procedures for completing the summary are as follows

1 Summarize the undertakings reviewed by the HPC that were considered exempt from case-by-case review

2 Summarize the undertakings that required consultation and the results of that consultation

3 List any specific resource or action of special concern to the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

4 Report any inadvertent discoveries and any actions taken by EN as a result

5 Summarize consultation that has occurred or is ongoing

6 Outline planned activities for the coming period and indicate whether any will require consultation with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF

7 Summarize the activities and results of any other HPMP measures such as personnel training and site monitoring

8 Report on the security of confidential historic property information that his held by EN

9 Include any recommendations regarding amendments to the HPMP

EN will file the first report at the end of third year after FERC approves the HPMP These reports will be filed confidentially with FERC and the other HPMP participants to protect site locations from public disclosure as needed

80 Specific Measures

Specific management measures include the applicability of ARPA permits review procedures for new ground-disturbing activities monitoring the condition of archaeological sites coordination with law enforcement regarding looting and vandalism handling inadvertent discoveries of archaeological materials and human remains taking action in response to urgent conditions and measures for 45LE285 and the USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley These measures are discussed in the following sections

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

33

81 Applicability of ARPA Permits ARPA permits are required for archaeological survey and excavation fieldwork on federal

land including the GPNF unless the work is being conducted by the agency itself EN will require any archaeological contractors who perform work for EN to apply for ARPA permits when working on GPNF land

82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities Although EN plans no ground-disturbing activities it is possible that such activities will be needed during the term of the new license EN will require that any plans for ground-disturbing activities be submitted to the HPC for review The HPC will consider whether the activities are planned for a project footprint or an area that has been previously completely disturbed or that has received archaeological survey within the previous 10 years The HPC will consult a professional archaeologist if necessary

The HPC will provide a letter to the CRC members describing the planned activity and a map of its location GPNF (if the activity is planned for Forest land) the affected Tribes and DAHP The letter will discuss the HPCs consideration of previous archaeological survey and disturbance and recommend whether additional archaeological work such as survey or excavation monitoring should be conducted If a CRC member requests a meeting to discuss the activity the HPC will arrange a meeting If CRC members agree with the HPCs recommendation about the activity or if they do not respond within 30 days of receiving ENs letter EN may proceed with the activity If additional archaeological work is needed the HPC will contract for the work to be done inform the CRC members and provide draft and final copies of any reports to them

83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285 EN will arrange for a professional archaeologist to conduct periodic monitoring at 45LE285 This work will entail devising a plan to measure the rate of shoreline recession that may be observed at the site Monitoring will be conducted at least once every three years In addition Project personnel will maintain vigilance of the site location to observe signs of looting andor vandalism ENs HPC will provide a brief report on monitoring results to the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the affected Tribes and DAHP Meetings may be called with consulting parties to discuss problems if they arise and EN will arrange for corrective measures that may be needed in consultation with the CRC members

84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism Looting and vandalism are common challenges in cultural resource management Looting is

the illegal unscientific removal of archaeological resources vandalism is the intentional or unintentional defacement of a resource Visitors may deliberately or unintentionally disturb sites and collect artifacts without knowledge of how their actions affect the resource or the legal

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

34

consequences These actions cause a loss of the historic value of the resource and also may cause a cultural loss to the affected Tribes

EN will cooperate with the GPNF in its anti-vandalism program These steps will include confidentiality site monitoring education and coordination with law enforcement

Confidentiality ndash Information about the location and contents of Project area archaeological resources will be kept confidential in accordance with established professional standards

Site Monitoring ndash EN will discuss with the GPNF Heritage Program Manager the results of periodic monitoring of 45LE285 Protection measures will be considered as needed based on this consultation

Education ndash EN will educate its staff about the legal implications of vandalism how to recognize its occurrence (being present in archaeologically sensitive areas for no apparent reason walking patterns and bending to examine or collect materials from the surface digging or vandalism) and correct procedures to follow upon its discovery (see Section 75 above) Appropriate protocols for the discovery of vandalism of human remains are discussed in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Section 85 and Appendix B)

Coordination with Law Enforcement ndashAs noted in Section 72 above the HPC will become familiar with ARPA violations that could occur on federal land within the APE When EN employees observe potentially illegal activities the employee will assuming hisher personal safety is not at risk note information about artifact collecting activities and immediately call the HPC or the Law Enforcement Officer for the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District depending on land ownership For incidents on non-federal land the HPC will call the Lewis County Sheriffs Department and also will notify the cultural resource specialists of the GPNF and the Tribes if prehistoric artifacts or human remains are disturbed Trained law enforcement personnel and trained cultural resource specialists as needed will collect evidence if it is appropriate to initiate prosecutions against those who violate laws in accordance with ARPA and damage to federal property violations on GPNF land and Washington State violations on private land

85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains Over the new license period unexpected discoveries of prehistoric and historic-period

archaeological materials and human remains could occur The remains could be uncovered by erosion recreation activities or vandalism or be found during the course of ground-disturbing activities for the Project EN has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that provides the procedures to be followed for the identification and treatment of archaeological materials and human remains (Appendix B) The IDP specifies consultation with DAHP the affected Tribes and with GPNF if the find occurs on USFS land located within the Project boundary

The IDP is intended to

Comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations particularly 36 CFR 80013 of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

35

Preservation Act and Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for finds on the GPNF

Describe the procedures EN will follow to deal with inadvertent discoveries and

Provide direction and guidance to EN personnel andor contractors about the procedures to be followed should an unexpected discovery occur

86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions EN would have to respond urgently when life safety property or continued operations are at

risk by an unpredictable action such as fire flood extreme weather conditions or facility malfunctions During such urgent conditions Project staff will likely not be able to follow some or all of the HPMP management protocols However staff can endeavor to minimize disturbance and damage to known historic properties

Upon resolution of the urgent condition managers or other emergency coordinators must report the locations and actions taken to the HPC The HPC will follow up with whatever inspection andor specialists are needed to assess the extent of damage to the historic property or the eligibility of a resource inadvertently discovered during the urgent condition Consultation the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF may be necessary Future steps may include implementation of measures that would protect the resource from impacts in the future or data recovery The HPC is responsible for ensuring that regulatory requirements regarding historic properties are met (36 CFR Sec 80012) The HPC will ensure that relevant Project plans such as the Emergency Plan and its component procedures reference the role of historic properties management

87 Measures for 45LE285 EN will review information resulting from monitoring of the 45LE285 and will be in contact with the GPNF at least every five years about the sites condition If the monitoring results show that the Project has an adverse effect on the site EN will work with the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF to develop measures to resolve the effect

88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley EN staff will observe the USGS Gaging Station during their regular work activities If any vandalism occurs EN will report it to the GPNF Cowlitz Valley District Ranger and to the Heritage Program Manager EN staff also will report on the condition of the building especially the roof every three years as part of the periodic report (see Section 77)

89 Public Education and Interpretation Information on prehistory and history needs to be relayed to a general audience to increase

public awareness of the prehistoric and historic properties at Packwood Lake Trail-side interpretive signs are an effective means of providing information to a large number of visitors to

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

36

promote understanding of past occupation as well as the importance of archaeological remains and the need to protect them EN will work with the CRC members to develop an interpretive sign about aspects of prehistoric and historic use of the Packwood Lake area and make reference to the need to protect nearby archaeological and historical resources without specifying actual site locations EN will work with the USFS to place the sign at the OHV parking area at Packwood Lake

90 Plan Implementation

Implementation of the HPMP involves several administrative procedures The following sections briefly discuss the procedures and schedule for implementing the HPMP including its review and amendment and the resolution of disputes

91 Procedures FERC staff will prepare and execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) providing for the

filing of this HPMP The PA will provide for HPMP review and dispute resolution as well as other standard provisions commonly found in PAs for FERC hydroelectric projects

92 Schedule EN will implement the HPMP following FERC approval Table 2 summarizes the schedule

for implementing the management measures The deadlines are measured from the date that FERC approves the HPMP

Table 2 Schedule for Implementing Management Measures

Measure Frequency Deadline

Conduct staff training Annually Combined with other scheduled Project training

Monitor archaeological site 45LE285 Every 3 years During drawdown Monitor USGS Gaging Station roof condition Every 3 years End of third quarter Prepare Cultural Resources Report Every 3 years 60 days after end of fourth quarter Reviewrevise measures in the HPMP Every 10 years End of third quarter Review ground-disturbing activities As needed As needed

93 Plan Review and Revisions At 10-year intervals after adoption of the HPMP EN will review the document to see if

revisions may be warranted EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC and GPNF in writing that a review is to be conducted The review can include such matters as changes in regulations cultural resource technology inventory results and National Register status of a property

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

37

Any of the interested parties including EN may suggest a revision to the HPMP by providing the information in writing to the other parties EN will provide for a meeting if necessary which may be part of the periodic Cultural Resource Committee meeting for the parties to discuss the suggested revisions and reach agreement EN will then make the agreed-upon revisions to the HPMP and circulate the relevant pages to the parties for review and concurrence This may be done as part of the periodic Cultural Resource Report If the parties cannot research agreement on a suggested revision the sponsoring party may submit the matter to dispute resolution under the procedures of the PA

94 Dispute Resolution As the party responsible for implementing the HPMP EN will attempt to resolve informally

any objections raised by the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF EN will first seek resolution through discussion with the party raising the objection If that discussion is not effective EN will convene a meeting of the parties to seek resolution If that measure is not effective EN will consult with FERC staff about the objection If the objection cannot be resolved through these informal measures the objection will be subject to the process for dispute resolution that will be outlined in the PA Under these formal procedures it is anticipated that the affected Tribes DAHP and GPNF may file written objections with FERC FERC will consult with the objecting party and the other parties as appropriate to resolve the objections

If FERC determines that the objection cannot be resolved it will forward the relevant documentation to the ACHP and request its comment Within 30 days after receiving all of the relevant documentation the ACHP will either provide recommendations for FERC to take into account in reaching a final decision about the dispute or the Council will notify FERC that it will comment under provisions of 36 CFR Part 800 FERC will take into account any ACHP comments and issue a decision on the matter

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

38

100 References Cited

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties A Handbook

Barnosky Cathy W 1981 A Record of Late Quaternary Vegetation from Davis Lake southern Puget Lowland

Washington Quaternary Research 16221-239 Bouchard Randy Dorothy Kennedy and Mark Cox

1998 Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the National Forest Lands Proposed for Exchange to Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 Land Exchange Project Report prepared for United State Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company Wenatchee National Forest Report 061703 amp 0898-06a Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Report CRR-98-002

Bourdeau Alex 1990 Guard Residence(13N9E-1503) Historic Property Inventory Form On file at Washington

State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Burtchard Greg C

2003 Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

Cardwell Rod 1966 A Tale About Wild Goats Milk The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger Tacoma

Washington June 5 1966 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecardwellhtm

Carpenter Cecelia S 1981 Muckleshoot Puyallup Nisqually amp Cowlitz In Inventory of Native American Religious Use

Practices Localities and Resources Study Area on the Mt Baker ndash Snoqualmie National Forest Washington State edited by Astrida R Blukis Onat and Jan L Hollenbeck pp 473-517 Report prepared by Institute of Cooperative Research Inc under Contract 53-05M6-0076N

Chehalis Bee-Nugget [Chehalis Washington] 1909 Story of Packwood Lake Interesting One to Anglers 10 December10

Chehalis Chronicle 1972 Flames Level Resort at Packwood Lake Chehalis Chronicle Chehalis Washington

October 24 1972 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencechehalischronicalhtm

Combs Mrs Sherman et al 1954 History Committee Report Packwood Washington

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencecombs-shermanhtm Costima Lewy

1934 Upper Cowlitz Myth and Geographic Text In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Vol 19 by M Jacobs pp 238-246 New York

Cunningham Harry 1910 Map of Packwood Lake dated December 10 1910 Record Group 95 Records of the Forest

Service National Archives and Records Administration Alaska Pacific Region Seattle

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

39

Dampf Steven 2005 Packwood Lake Outlet Site (45LE285) State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory

Form On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington Dampf Steven and Gail Thompson

2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric project (FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington Report submitted to Energy Northwest by Historical Research Associates Inc On file State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Delacy WW 1861 Journal of the Exploring Expedition for a Pass Through the Cascade Mountains South of

Mount Rainier Pioneer and Democrat p 3 Olympia Washington March 29 Dubeacute Kathy

2005 Email regarding Packwood Lake draw down area erosion study Sent to Gail Thompson HRA November 29

Energy Northwest 2004 Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 Pre-Application document

Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects

FERC 2018 Order Issuing New License Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (P-2244) October 2018

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

Freymond S 1992 Big Sleep Peeled Cedar (13N10E-2103) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form

On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Hadja Yvonne

1990 Southwestern Coast Salish In Handbook of North American Indians Vol 7 Northwest Coast edited by Wayne Suttles pp 503-517 Smithsonian Institution Washington DC

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 Washington

Hearne Carol T and Jan L Hollenbeck 1996 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest USDA Forest

Service Pacific Northwest Region Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Mountlake Terrace Washington

Hollenbeck Barbara J 1985 Boundaries of Prediction in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest In Archaeological Inventory

and Predictive Modeling in the Pacific Northwest Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the USDA-Forest Service compiled and edited by Richard F Darsie James D Keyser and Stephen Hackenberger pp 71-75

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

40

Irwin Judith W 1994 The Dispossessed The Cowlitz Indians in the Cowlitz Corridor The Columbian 1994

Summer Copyright 2002 Cowlitz Indian Tribe Reprinted to httpwwwcowlitzorghistorydispossedhtm

Iyall Mike 2004 Personal communication to Laura Schinnell August 23 2004

httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelyall-mikehtm Jacobs Melville M

1934 Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 19(1) Columbia University Press New York

Jensen Chris 1988 Packwood Lake Island (13N10E-2804) USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National

Forest Isolate Site Form On file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

Jensen Chris and Janet Liddle 1987 Cuyursquoik (45LE296) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington Jermann Jerry V and Roger D Mason

1976 A Cultural Resource Overview of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest South Central Washington Reconnaissance Reports No 7 Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington Seattle

Kiona Mary 1953 Testimony in Simon Plamondon on relation of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians vs the United

States of America Docket No 218 Transcript of Proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission United States Court House Seattle August 5

1965 Oral history interview conducted by Martha Hardy Audiocassette copy of original reel-to-reel tape on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lange Larry 1977 Packwood Its worth the hike The Columbian Vancouver Washington September 11

1977 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencelangehtm Lewis Ralph E

1965 45LE201 Washington State University Archaeological Site Survey Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Liddle Janet L 1990 Cultural Resource Survey Report Pack Rat Salvage Sale 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 1664-F-FS-GP-08

1991 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Well 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 1815-F-FS-GP-01

Markos Jeffrey A 1987 Archaeological field notes test excavations site 45LE285 August 30 1987 Original

records on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990 Packwood Lake The Lithic Technology of a Multi-Resource Acquisition Site in

Southwestern Washington MA thesis Department of Anthropology Washington State

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

41

University Pullman Published by USDA Forest Service Gifford Pichot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1990 The Packwood Lake Site Lithic Technology and Site Function Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2)217-229

McClure Richard H Jr 1982 Packwood Lake Guard Cabin (45LE238) National Register of Historic Places Inventory

Nomination Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1983 Willame Trail (Trail 153) Cultural Resource Inventory Record Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1985 Bodies Cabin (45LE272H) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987a Packwood Lake Outlet (45LE285) Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

1987b Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Trail Bridge Replacement 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 950-06

1987c Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Site 45-LE-285 Packwood Lake Lewis County Washington USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Packwood Ranger District Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington

1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Beech Creek Site (45LE415) Gifford Pinchot National Forest USDA Forest Service Region Six Gifford Pinchot National Forest Vancouver Washington

1998 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southern Washington Cascades In Environment Prehistory amp Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park Washington by Greg C Burtchard Report prepared for the National Park Service Seattle Washington

2004a Heritage Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Guard Cabin Rehabilitation USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 042804-03-USFS-GP

2004b Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No 2244 USDA Forest Service Gifford Pinchot National Forest Existing Information Analysis for Heritage Resources September 7 2004 To be available on USDA Forest Service web site at httpwwwfsfedusgpnf

McKay Kathy L 1990a Valley Development Company Brief History Ms on file Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1990b Snyder Mountain Prospecting Shafts (13N9E-2302) Washington Archaeological Site

Inventory Form On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Washington

Morton Journal 1974 Lake Concessions to Open Again Morton Journal Morton Washington February 21

1974 httpwwwenergy-northwestcomgenpackwoodreferencemortonjournalhtm Neeley Agnes and Ralph Neeley

1968 Transcript of Interview with Martha Hardy On file Gifford Pinchot National Forest March 17

CUIPRIV

42

Parker Patricia L and Thomas F King 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties National Park

Service Bulletin 38 National Park Service Washington DC Rice David G

1969 Archaeological Reconnaissance Southcentral Cascades Washington Washington Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No 2

Sethe William 1914 Columbia National Forest T13N R9E WM On file at USDA Forest Service Pacific

Northwest Region Portland Smith Allan H

1964 Ethnographic Guide to the Archaeology of Mt Rainier National Park Final Report Submitted to National Park Service under Contract No 14-10-0434-1422

Snyder RV and LC Meyer 1971 Gifford Pinchot National Forest Soil Resource Inventory USDA Forest Service Pacific

Northwest Region Portland Spier Leslie

1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington General Series in Anthropology 3 Menasha Wisconsin Thompson Gail

2005 Cultural Resources Study Plan for Energy Northwests Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project Lewis County Washington Submitted to Energy Northwest Richland Washington April 26 2005 by Historical Research Associates Inc Seattle Washington

USDA Forest Service 1936 Recreational Unit Plan In Columbia National Forest Recreation Atlas On file Gifford

Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1939 Historical Sketches Fire History Columbia National Forest On file Gifford Pinchot

National Forest Trout Lake Washington 1993 Cultural Resource Survey Report Packwood Lake Resort EA Report on file Heritage

Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest Trout Lake Washington OAHP Log No 012093-02 2004 PIT-WA-03 Packwood Lake Guard Station Restoration

httpwwwvolunteergovgovuidetailcfmID=3710 US Surveyor General

1904 General Land Office Survey Map of Township 13 North Range 9 East 1918 General Land Office Survey Map of Township 13 North Range 9 East

Wetherbee Jean 1974 A Handbook on White Ironstone Published by the author New York

Yoke Jim 1934 Upper Cowlitz Geographic Notes In Northwest Sahaptin Texts Part I by Melville Jacobs pp

228-237 Columbia University Press New York

CUIPRIV

Appendix A Glossary and Acronym List

CUIPRIV

A-1

Appendix A Glossary and Acronym List

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

APE The Area of Potential Effects defined as the property located within the FERC project boundary where the Project could affect historic properties that area present

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 ATV All Terrain Vehicle CIT Cowlitz Indian Tribe CRC Cultural Resource Committee DAHP Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation EN Energy Northwest EO Executive Order FCR Fire-cracked Rock FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC Project Boundary the official boundary established by FERC regulations defining those lands

required for the safe operation of the project GIS Geographic Information System Databases GNPF Gifford Pinchot National Forest HPC Historic Preservation Coordinator HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan (this document) IampE Interpretation and Education IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan msl Mean Sea Level NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register -- National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 80016(1)) OAHP Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation PA Programmatic Agreement Project The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project PMampE Protection Mitigation and Enhancement SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TCPs Traditional Cultural Properties USFS United States Forest Service WA Washington State YN Yakama Nation

CUIPRIV

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

CUIPRIV

B-1

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Materials and Human Remains

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 2244)

If any member of the operations staff believes that he or she has found an archaeological artifact or a human bone in the Project boundary that person will leave the find in place and notify Energy Northwests (ENs) onsite representative The onsite representative will protect the area at and adjacent to the discovery from disturbance The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the discovery

Treatment of Archaeological Materials

There are many types of archaeological materials A discovery could be prehistoric or historic-period and consist of but not be limited to for example

An area of charcoal or charcoal-stained soil in association with historic-period or prehistoric remains such as stone tools or chips

An arrowhead stone tool or stone chips

An historic bottle old glass fragments square nails ldquohole in toprdquo lead-soldered cans etc

A cluster of bones or burned rocks in association with stone tools or chips

A cluster of tin cans or bottles logging mining or agricultural equipment older than 50 years

Culturally modified tree

The EN onsite representative will contact the Historic Preservation Coordinator The EN Historic Preservation Coordinator will then consult with a professional archaeologist to determine whether the discovery may be archaeological

The EN onsite representative will take reasonable steps to protect the discovery site EN will notify the GPNF of the discovery within 24 hours if the find is on USFS-managed land Vehicles equipment and individuals who are not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site Any ground-disturbing work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed or the discovery has been adequately protected

EN will determine whether it is necessary to continue any ground-disturbing work that led to the discovery If it is necessary the following steps apply

ENs HPC will arrange for the discovery to be evaluated by an archeologist The archeologist will recommend whether the discovery is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register If the resource is not considered eligible this judgment will be documented and distributed to the consulting parties

CUIPRIV

B-2

EN will work with the GPNF representatives for discoveries on GPNF land and with the landowner for discoveries on state or private land The interested parties will also include the affected Tribes (unless the discovery is clearly non-Indian) DAHP and FERC

ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator and the archaeologist will contact the appropriate parties (list attached) as soon as practical to seek consultation regarding the National Register-eligibility of the discovery If the consulting parties determine that the discovery is an eligible resource they will consult with appropriate parties for treatment Treatment measures may include mapping photography limited probing and sample collection or other activity

EN will arrange for the archaeologist to implement the appropriate treatment measure(s) and provide draft and final reports on their methods and results to the consulting parties Any investigation of the discovery will follow the procedures recommended by the archeologist for mitigation andor management If it is not necessary to continue any ground-disturbing activities that led to the discovery EN will consult to stabilize and protect the materials If the discovery is National Register-eligible measures for it will be added to in the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project

Treatment of Human Remains

EN personnel will take reasonable steps to ensure that any human remains that are discovered within the Project boundary are treated with dignity respect and in accordance with the law The Indian Tribes to be contacted by EN personnel for potential Indian remains are the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation (see attached list)

If any EN employee or contractor believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains andor associated or unassociated funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony that person will notify ENrsquos onsite representative The onsite representative will stop work in and adjacent to the discovery and keep the remains covered The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the remains Vehicles equipment and individuals not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site

The onsite representative will call the Lewis County Sheriffrsquos office and ENrsquos Historic Preservation Coordinator The Sheriffrsquos office and County Coroners office may of course examine the discovery and determine whether the human remains will be treated as a crime scene ENs onsite representative will remind the Sheriffrsquos office

That the find may be a prehistoric or historic-period burial

That the affected Indian Tribes are very concerned about Indian burials and the find must be treated confidentially so that it is not subject to vandalism and

That the Tribes will be notified and asked if they want to be present

If the site is on USFS land the HPC will immediately telephone notification with written confirmation by certified mail to the Federal Agency Official the Cowlitz Valley District Ranger EN will also contact the GPNF Heritage Program Manager and Law Enforcement Officer if the HPC cannot reach the District Ranger If the remains are found to be human or

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

A-1

Appendix A Glossary and Acronym List

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

APE The Area of Potential Effects defined as the property located within the FERC project boundary where the Project could affect historic properties that area present

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 ATV All Terrain Vehicle CIT Cowlitz Indian Tribe CRC Cultural Resource Committee DAHP Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation EN Energy Northwest EO Executive Order FCR Fire-cracked Rock FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC Project Boundary the official boundary established by FERC regulations defining those lands

required for the safe operation of the project GIS Geographic Information System Databases GNPF Gifford Pinchot National Forest HPC Historic Preservation Coordinator HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan (this document) IampE Interpretation and Education IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan msl Mean Sea Level NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register -- National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 80016(1)) OAHP Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation PA Programmatic Agreement Project The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project PMampE Protection Mitigation and Enhancement SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TCPs Traditional Cultural Properties USFS United States Forest Service WA Washington State YN Yakama Nation

CUIPRIV

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

CUIPRIV

B-1

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Materials and Human Remains

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 2244)

If any member of the operations staff believes that he or she has found an archaeological artifact or a human bone in the Project boundary that person will leave the find in place and notify Energy Northwests (ENs) onsite representative The onsite representative will protect the area at and adjacent to the discovery from disturbance The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the discovery

Treatment of Archaeological Materials

There are many types of archaeological materials A discovery could be prehistoric or historic-period and consist of but not be limited to for example

An area of charcoal or charcoal-stained soil in association with historic-period or prehistoric remains such as stone tools or chips

An arrowhead stone tool or stone chips

An historic bottle old glass fragments square nails ldquohole in toprdquo lead-soldered cans etc

A cluster of bones or burned rocks in association with stone tools or chips

A cluster of tin cans or bottles logging mining or agricultural equipment older than 50 years

Culturally modified tree

The EN onsite representative will contact the Historic Preservation Coordinator The EN Historic Preservation Coordinator will then consult with a professional archaeologist to determine whether the discovery may be archaeological

The EN onsite representative will take reasonable steps to protect the discovery site EN will notify the GPNF of the discovery within 24 hours if the find is on USFS-managed land Vehicles equipment and individuals who are not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site Any ground-disturbing work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed or the discovery has been adequately protected

EN will determine whether it is necessary to continue any ground-disturbing work that led to the discovery If it is necessary the following steps apply

ENs HPC will arrange for the discovery to be evaluated by an archeologist The archeologist will recommend whether the discovery is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register If the resource is not considered eligible this judgment will be documented and distributed to the consulting parties

CUIPRIV

B-2

EN will work with the GPNF representatives for discoveries on GPNF land and with the landowner for discoveries on state or private land The interested parties will also include the affected Tribes (unless the discovery is clearly non-Indian) DAHP and FERC

ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator and the archaeologist will contact the appropriate parties (list attached) as soon as practical to seek consultation regarding the National Register-eligibility of the discovery If the consulting parties determine that the discovery is an eligible resource they will consult with appropriate parties for treatment Treatment measures may include mapping photography limited probing and sample collection or other activity

EN will arrange for the archaeologist to implement the appropriate treatment measure(s) and provide draft and final reports on their methods and results to the consulting parties Any investigation of the discovery will follow the procedures recommended by the archeologist for mitigation andor management If it is not necessary to continue any ground-disturbing activities that led to the discovery EN will consult to stabilize and protect the materials If the discovery is National Register-eligible measures for it will be added to in the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project

Treatment of Human Remains

EN personnel will take reasonable steps to ensure that any human remains that are discovered within the Project boundary are treated with dignity respect and in accordance with the law The Indian Tribes to be contacted by EN personnel for potential Indian remains are the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation (see attached list)

If any EN employee or contractor believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains andor associated or unassociated funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony that person will notify ENrsquos onsite representative The onsite representative will stop work in and adjacent to the discovery and keep the remains covered The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the remains Vehicles equipment and individuals not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site

The onsite representative will call the Lewis County Sheriffrsquos office and ENrsquos Historic Preservation Coordinator The Sheriffrsquos office and County Coroners office may of course examine the discovery and determine whether the human remains will be treated as a crime scene ENs onsite representative will remind the Sheriffrsquos office

That the find may be a prehistoric or historic-period burial

That the affected Indian Tribes are very concerned about Indian burials and the find must be treated confidentially so that it is not subject to vandalism and

That the Tribes will be notified and asked if they want to be present

If the site is on USFS land the HPC will immediately telephone notification with written confirmation by certified mail to the Federal Agency Official the Cowlitz Valley District Ranger EN will also contact the GPNF Heritage Program Manager and Law Enforcement Officer if the HPC cannot reach the District Ranger If the remains are found to be human or

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

CUIPRIV

B-1

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Materials and Human Remains

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 2244)

If any member of the operations staff believes that he or she has found an archaeological artifact or a human bone in the Project boundary that person will leave the find in place and notify Energy Northwests (ENs) onsite representative The onsite representative will protect the area at and adjacent to the discovery from disturbance The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the discovery

Treatment of Archaeological Materials

There are many types of archaeological materials A discovery could be prehistoric or historic-period and consist of but not be limited to for example

An area of charcoal or charcoal-stained soil in association with historic-period or prehistoric remains such as stone tools or chips

An arrowhead stone tool or stone chips

An historic bottle old glass fragments square nails ldquohole in toprdquo lead-soldered cans etc

A cluster of bones or burned rocks in association with stone tools or chips

A cluster of tin cans or bottles logging mining or agricultural equipment older than 50 years

Culturally modified tree

The EN onsite representative will contact the Historic Preservation Coordinator The EN Historic Preservation Coordinator will then consult with a professional archaeologist to determine whether the discovery may be archaeological

The EN onsite representative will take reasonable steps to protect the discovery site EN will notify the GPNF of the discovery within 24 hours if the find is on USFS-managed land Vehicles equipment and individuals who are not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site Any ground-disturbing work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed or the discovery has been adequately protected

EN will determine whether it is necessary to continue any ground-disturbing work that led to the discovery If it is necessary the following steps apply

ENs HPC will arrange for the discovery to be evaluated by an archeologist The archeologist will recommend whether the discovery is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register If the resource is not considered eligible this judgment will be documented and distributed to the consulting parties

CUIPRIV

B-2

EN will work with the GPNF representatives for discoveries on GPNF land and with the landowner for discoveries on state or private land The interested parties will also include the affected Tribes (unless the discovery is clearly non-Indian) DAHP and FERC

ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator and the archaeologist will contact the appropriate parties (list attached) as soon as practical to seek consultation regarding the National Register-eligibility of the discovery If the consulting parties determine that the discovery is an eligible resource they will consult with appropriate parties for treatment Treatment measures may include mapping photography limited probing and sample collection or other activity

EN will arrange for the archaeologist to implement the appropriate treatment measure(s) and provide draft and final reports on their methods and results to the consulting parties Any investigation of the discovery will follow the procedures recommended by the archeologist for mitigation andor management If it is not necessary to continue any ground-disturbing activities that led to the discovery EN will consult to stabilize and protect the materials If the discovery is National Register-eligible measures for it will be added to in the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project

Treatment of Human Remains

EN personnel will take reasonable steps to ensure that any human remains that are discovered within the Project boundary are treated with dignity respect and in accordance with the law The Indian Tribes to be contacted by EN personnel for potential Indian remains are the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation (see attached list)

If any EN employee or contractor believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains andor associated or unassociated funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony that person will notify ENrsquos onsite representative The onsite representative will stop work in and adjacent to the discovery and keep the remains covered The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the remains Vehicles equipment and individuals not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site

The onsite representative will call the Lewis County Sheriffrsquos office and ENrsquos Historic Preservation Coordinator The Sheriffrsquos office and County Coroners office may of course examine the discovery and determine whether the human remains will be treated as a crime scene ENs onsite representative will remind the Sheriffrsquos office

That the find may be a prehistoric or historic-period burial

That the affected Indian Tribes are very concerned about Indian burials and the find must be treated confidentially so that it is not subject to vandalism and

That the Tribes will be notified and asked if they want to be present

If the site is on USFS land the HPC will immediately telephone notification with written confirmation by certified mail to the Federal Agency Official the Cowlitz Valley District Ranger EN will also contact the GPNF Heritage Program Manager and Law Enforcement Officer if the HPC cannot reach the District Ranger If the remains are found to be human or

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

B-1

Appendix B Inadvertent Discovery Plan for Archaeological Materials and Human Remains

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 2244)

If any member of the operations staff believes that he or she has found an archaeological artifact or a human bone in the Project boundary that person will leave the find in place and notify Energy Northwests (ENs) onsite representative The onsite representative will protect the area at and adjacent to the discovery from disturbance The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the discovery

Treatment of Archaeological Materials

There are many types of archaeological materials A discovery could be prehistoric or historic-period and consist of but not be limited to for example

An area of charcoal or charcoal-stained soil in association with historic-period or prehistoric remains such as stone tools or chips

An arrowhead stone tool or stone chips

An historic bottle old glass fragments square nails ldquohole in toprdquo lead-soldered cans etc

A cluster of bones or burned rocks in association with stone tools or chips

A cluster of tin cans or bottles logging mining or agricultural equipment older than 50 years

Culturally modified tree

The EN onsite representative will contact the Historic Preservation Coordinator The EN Historic Preservation Coordinator will then consult with a professional archaeologist to determine whether the discovery may be archaeological

The EN onsite representative will take reasonable steps to protect the discovery site EN will notify the GPNF of the discovery within 24 hours if the find is on USFS-managed land Vehicles equipment and individuals who are not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site Any ground-disturbing work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed or the discovery has been adequately protected

EN will determine whether it is necessary to continue any ground-disturbing work that led to the discovery If it is necessary the following steps apply

ENs HPC will arrange for the discovery to be evaluated by an archeologist The archeologist will recommend whether the discovery is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register If the resource is not considered eligible this judgment will be documented and distributed to the consulting parties

CUIPRIV

B-2

EN will work with the GPNF representatives for discoveries on GPNF land and with the landowner for discoveries on state or private land The interested parties will also include the affected Tribes (unless the discovery is clearly non-Indian) DAHP and FERC

ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator and the archaeologist will contact the appropriate parties (list attached) as soon as practical to seek consultation regarding the National Register-eligibility of the discovery If the consulting parties determine that the discovery is an eligible resource they will consult with appropriate parties for treatment Treatment measures may include mapping photography limited probing and sample collection or other activity

EN will arrange for the archaeologist to implement the appropriate treatment measure(s) and provide draft and final reports on their methods and results to the consulting parties Any investigation of the discovery will follow the procedures recommended by the archeologist for mitigation andor management If it is not necessary to continue any ground-disturbing activities that led to the discovery EN will consult to stabilize and protect the materials If the discovery is National Register-eligible measures for it will be added to in the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project

Treatment of Human Remains

EN personnel will take reasonable steps to ensure that any human remains that are discovered within the Project boundary are treated with dignity respect and in accordance with the law The Indian Tribes to be contacted by EN personnel for potential Indian remains are the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation (see attached list)

If any EN employee or contractor believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains andor associated or unassociated funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony that person will notify ENrsquos onsite representative The onsite representative will stop work in and adjacent to the discovery and keep the remains covered The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the remains Vehicles equipment and individuals not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site

The onsite representative will call the Lewis County Sheriffrsquos office and ENrsquos Historic Preservation Coordinator The Sheriffrsquos office and County Coroners office may of course examine the discovery and determine whether the human remains will be treated as a crime scene ENs onsite representative will remind the Sheriffrsquos office

That the find may be a prehistoric or historic-period burial

That the affected Indian Tribes are very concerned about Indian burials and the find must be treated confidentially so that it is not subject to vandalism and

That the Tribes will be notified and asked if they want to be present

If the site is on USFS land the HPC will immediately telephone notification with written confirmation by certified mail to the Federal Agency Official the Cowlitz Valley District Ranger EN will also contact the GPNF Heritage Program Manager and Law Enforcement Officer if the HPC cannot reach the District Ranger If the remains are found to be human or

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

B-2

EN will work with the GPNF representatives for discoveries on GPNF land and with the landowner for discoveries on state or private land The interested parties will also include the affected Tribes (unless the discovery is clearly non-Indian) DAHP and FERC

ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator and the archaeologist will contact the appropriate parties (list attached) as soon as practical to seek consultation regarding the National Register-eligibility of the discovery If the consulting parties determine that the discovery is an eligible resource they will consult with appropriate parties for treatment Treatment measures may include mapping photography limited probing and sample collection or other activity

EN will arrange for the archaeologist to implement the appropriate treatment measure(s) and provide draft and final reports on their methods and results to the consulting parties Any investigation of the discovery will follow the procedures recommended by the archeologist for mitigation andor management If it is not necessary to continue any ground-disturbing activities that led to the discovery EN will consult to stabilize and protect the materials If the discovery is National Register-eligible measures for it will be added to in the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project

Treatment of Human Remains

EN personnel will take reasonable steps to ensure that any human remains that are discovered within the Project boundary are treated with dignity respect and in accordance with the law The Indian Tribes to be contacted by EN personnel for potential Indian remains are the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and the Yakama Nation (see attached list)

If any EN employee or contractor believes that he or she has made an inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains andor associated or unassociated funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony that person will notify ENrsquos onsite representative The onsite representative will stop work in and adjacent to the discovery and keep the remains covered The protected area will be large enough for the onsite representative to provide for the security protection and integrity of the remains Vehicles equipment and individuals not authorized by the onsite representative will not be permitted to traverse alter or destroy the discovery site

The onsite representative will call the Lewis County Sheriffrsquos office and ENrsquos Historic Preservation Coordinator The Sheriffrsquos office and County Coroners office may of course examine the discovery and determine whether the human remains will be treated as a crime scene ENs onsite representative will remind the Sheriffrsquos office

That the find may be a prehistoric or historic-period burial

That the affected Indian Tribes are very concerned about Indian burials and the find must be treated confidentially so that it is not subject to vandalism and

That the Tribes will be notified and asked if they want to be present

If the site is on USFS land the HPC will immediately telephone notification with written confirmation by certified mail to the Federal Agency Official the Cowlitz Valley District Ranger EN will also contact the GPNF Heritage Program Manager and Law Enforcement Officer if the HPC cannot reach the District Ranger If the remains are found to be human or

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

B-3

funerary objects sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony are found GPNF will fulfill its responsibilities under NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10)

If the remains are determined to be American Indian and they lie in GPNF land GPNF will notify the affected Tribes DAHP and EN EN will notify FERC EN expects that the GPNF will be the lead agency working with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains Under Sec 3(d) of NAGPRA activities may resume 30 days after certification in writing by the GPNF that it has received ENs notification

If the find lies on non-USFS land and is determined not to be a crime scene ENs Historic Preservation Coordinator will use reasonable efforts to contact the interested Indian Tribes and secure the services of a cultural resource consultant qualified to identify human remains to assist EN in further activities with respect to the discovery If the remains are determined to be Indian and they lie in private land EN will notify the affected Tribes DAHP FERC GPNF and the land owner (if other than EN) The DAHP will be the lead agency consulting with the other parties to determine what treatment is appropriate for the remains

If disinterment of aboriginal human remains becomes necessary the consulting parties as listed above will jointly determine the final custodian of the human remains The final disposition of the human remains on GPNF land will be conducted in accordance with NAGPRA The parties will make a good faith effort to accommodate the concerns and requests of the Indian Tribes

If the remains are determined to be non-Indian EN will treat (or if the landowner is not EN or the GPNF encourage the landowner to treat) the remains in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Packwood Project Randy Crawford Station Leader 360-494-5000 rgcrawfordenergy-northwestcom

Energy Northwest Ken Williams Hydro amp Wind Projects Supervisor 509-3789755 kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom

Archaeologist To Be Determined

Department of Archaeology amp Historic Preservation Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist 1063 S Capitol Way Suite 106 Olympia WA 98501 360-586-3080 robwhitlamdahpwagov

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

B-4

Contact List for Inadvertent Discovery Plan Gifford Pinchot National Forest Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone Archaeologist 2433 Highway 141 Trout Lake WA 98650 360-891-5214 MJMawhirterfsfedus

Cowlitz Valley Ranger Station Gar Abbas District Ranger 10024 US Highway 12 Randle WA 98377 GAbbasfsfedus Andrew Larson Law Enforcement Officer 360-497-1125 ARLarsonfsfedus

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director 1055 9th Avenue Suite B Longview WA 98632 3605778140 NReynoldsCowlitzorg PermitReviewCowlitzorg William Iyall Cowlitz Indian Tribe Chairman 253-351-7095 WiyallCowlitzorg

Yakama Nation Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 401 Fort Road Toppenish WA 98948 509-865-1068 Kate_ValdezYakamacom

Lewis County Coroner 360-577-3079

Lewis County Sheriffs Office Address Call 911 and state that This is not an emergency 360-577-3092 or 360-577-3098 (non-emergency line)

CUIPRIV

If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this Plan pleasecontact me at 5093789755 or kvwilliamsenergy-northwestcom RespectfullyKen WilliamsKen WilliamsSupervisor Hydro amp Wind Projects Enclosure Historic Properties Management Plan December 2018 Confidential and

Final ldquoCUIPRIVrdquo Distribution Parties of the Programmatic Agreement Frank Winchell Archeologist FERC Rob Whitlam State Archaeologist Washington State DHAP William Iyall Chairman Cowlitz Indian Tribe Nathan Reynolds Culture Department Interim Director Cowlitz Indian Tribe Katie Valdez Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Yakama Nation Ruth Tracy FERC Coordinator USFS Matthew Mawhirter Heritage Program Manager amp South Zone ArchaeologistUSFS cc Corey OrsquoDonnell Environmental Scientist Energy Northwest Shannon Khounnala EnvironmentalRegulatory Programs Manager EnergyNorthwest Audrey DesseraultProject SpecialistPackwood Lake Hydroelectric Project5098402067 cell

Confidential Plan

Final Historic Properties Management Plan for Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No 2244) Lewis County Washington

Submitted to

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington DC

Submitted by

PO Box 968 Richland Washington 99352-0968

December 2018

CUIPRIV

• License Article 406 Historic Properties Management Plan and Programmatic Agreement cover letter EN to FERC 121818
• License Article 406 Historic Properties Management Plan and Programmatic Agreement email EN to Committee 121818
• Historic Properties Management Plan Final 121818
• • 10 Introduction
  • 20 Applicable Cultural Resource Laws and Regulations
  • • 21 Federal Laws and Regulations
    • 22 Washington State Laws and Regulations
    • 23 Federal and State Agencies and Indian Tribes
    • • 30 Project Description
      • 40 Environmental and Cultural Contexts
      • • 41 Environmental Context
        • 42 Prehistoric Context
        • • 421 Early Prehistoric Period ca 7000 to 3500 Years Ago
          • 422 Abandonment ca 3500 to 1500 Years Ago
          • 423 Late Prehistoric Period ca 1500 to 150 Years Ago
          • • 43 Native American Context
            • 44 Euro-American Context
            • • 50 Identification of Historic Properties
              • • 51 Area of Potential Effects
                • 52 Consultation and Cultural Resource Work Group
                • 53 Background Research
                • 54 Field Inventory
                • 55 Resources Inventoried and National Register Eligibility
                • • 551 Prehistoric Sites
                  • • Packwood Lake Outlet Site (USFS No 13102115 45LE285)
                    • Cuyuik Site (USFS No 13102803 45LE296)
                    • • 552 Historic-Period Archaeological Sites
                      • • Packwood Lake Trail (Pipeline Bench Road and Pipeline to Packwood Lake Motorized Trail)
                        • Valley Development Company Sites (USFS No 13092303 13092304 13092305 13092401 and VDC Trail)
                        • Other Historic-Period Archaeological Sites
                        • • 553 Buildings and Structures
                          • • USGS Gaging StationCableway Trolley
                            • • 56 Historic Properties
                              • • 60 Potential Effects of Relicensing
                                • 70 General Management Measures
                                • • 71 Management Goals Principles and Standards
                                  • • 711 Goals
                                    • 712 Principles and Standards for Archaeological Properties
                                    • • 72 EN Historic Preservation Coordinator
                                      • 73 Data Management and Confidentiality Policy
                                      • 74 Consultation and Meetings
                                      • 75 Personnel Training
                                      • 76 Curation and the Disposition of Artifacts and Human Remains
                                      • 77 Reporting
                                      • • 80 Specific Measures
                                        • • 81 Applicability of ARPA Permits
                                          • 82 Review Procedures for New Ground-Disturbing Activities
                                          • 83 Monitoring Archaeological Site 45LE285
                                          • 84 Coordination with Law Enforcement Regarding Looting and Vandalism
                                          • 85 Procedures for Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Materials and Human Remains
                                          • 86 Actions in Response to Urgent Conditions
                                          • 87 Measures for 45LE285
                                          • 88 Measures for the Gaging StationCableway Trolley
                                          • 89 Public Education and Interpretation
                                          • • 90 Plan Implementation
                                            • • 91 Procedures
                                              • 92 Schedule
                                              • 93 Plan Review and Revisions
                                              • 94 Dispute Resolution
                                              • • 100 References Cited
                                                • • Treatment of Archaeological Materials
                                                  • Treatment of Human Remains