3815_PGSF WMVD Pkg 2_Vol 4-2_03.03.2026_BXWA_Certified

ASPECT CONSULTING PROJECT NO. AS190583A-08  MAY 21, 2025 FINAL 9 2.3 Cultural Resources Ecology is working with landowners/stakeholders including local Native American Tribes to clean up contaminated sites and sediments in the vicinity of the Port Gardner Bay area and the Snohomish River Estuary. Port Gardner Bay is identified as a high-priority “early- action” cleanup area under the Puget Sound Initiative (PSI). The Site has been identified as a cleanup site under the PSI. Local Tribes that have been actively engaged by Ecology under the PSI at Port Gardner include the Tulalip, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Lummi. Ecology has worked with a tribal liaison to assist in developing contacts and early engagement with cultural and natural resource departments within each of the aforementioned Tribes. Engagement with the Tribes has consisted of meetings to discuss PSI cleanup sites and cultural resources, providing the Tribes with draft work products for early input, and providing them with updates containing the current status of each PSI site, near-term work products for tribal review, project schedules, and a summary of tribal engagement for the Port Gardner PSI sites. Based on Ecology’s discussion with the Tribes and information provided in a 1973 Historical Survey of Everett (Dilgard and Riddle, 1973), people have inhabited the Port Gardner Bay area for thousands of years. For centuries, the northwest point of the peninsula (i.e., Preston Point) was the site of Hibulb, the principal village of the Snohomish Tribe. The village’s location near the mouth of the Snohomish River and next to Port Gardner Bay provided both abundant food and transportation. Native Tribes used the Everett shoreline in part for subsistence activities such as shellfish collection, hunting, plant gathering, and fishing. According to local Tribes, native long houses were located up and down the Everett waterfront. Local Tribes have communicated to Ecology that the Everett waterfront is a culturally sensitive area. SWCA prepared an ARA that provides additional details regarding cultural resources in the Upland Area vicinity (SWCA, 2013a), as well as an Inadvertent Discovery Plan in support of the Upland Area IA (SWCA, 2013b). Appendix B to the RI/FS Work Plan (Aspect, 2013c) includes the ARA and Inadvertent Discovery Plan. 2.3.1 Archaeological Monitoring During Interim Actions In accordance with the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (SWCA, 2013b), archaeological monitoring was conducted by qualified personnel during the 2013–2014, 2020, and 2021–2023 IA excavation work described in Sections 4.1, 4.3, and 4.8, respectively. 2.3.1.1 First Interim Action (2013-2014) During the 2013-2014 IA, qualified personnel from SWCA Inc., under subcontract to Aspect, conducted archaeological monitoring during excavation of the Bunker C ASTs area located in the eastern portion of the Upland Area, where fill thickness is less and penetration into the underlying native soil was possible. The excavation appeared to remain within hydraulically placed dredge fill material, and no archaeological sites were identified by SWCA. A small, deeper excavation for installation of a dewatering sump in the northeastern corner of the excavation encountered apparent native organic-rich silt at a depth of approximately 11 to 12 feet. During excavation, a shelly deposit was observed, which required a work stoppage and further investigation by SWCA to determine if it was