DRAFT_Ruby Slough Cultural Resources Reportv3_102212x

soilkinkajouInternet and Web Development

Feb 2, 2013 (4 years and 4 months ago)

127 views


DRAFT

Cultural
Resources Report


Ruby Slough

Road

Project


AK
IRR
RUBY

1
(1)



Task Order No. T
-
12
-
00
8

Multi
-
Discipline IDIQ Contract No
.
DTFH 70
-
10
-
D
-
00018

Atkins Project No. 1000
30964

22

October

2012




Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

ii


Executive Summary

This report summarizes the methods and results of a cultural resources investigation conducted for the
proposed
Ruby Slough

Road

Project,
located
in
the Native Village of
Ruby, Alaska.
Ruby is located
approximately

50 air miles east of Galena and 230 air
miles west of Fairbanks.
The Western Federal Lands
Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation
with the Federal
Lands Highway (FLH), Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program
,

is
proposing to
repair and
reconstruct
ap
proximately
three miles of
the Ruby Sl
ough
a
ccess road
. The Ruby Slough
Road

is used for subsistence
activities and access to the gravel source utilized by the Native Village of Ruby.
The investigation was
conducted in
accordance

with Section 106 of the Na
tional Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
of 1966, as
amended.

Funding for the project was provided by the
FHWA
under Task Order Number:
DTFH 70
-
10
-
D
-
00018
.


The project area consists of a roadway extending
for approximately three miles, and trending
west from near
the Native Village of Ruby to Ruby Slough. Currently, no improvements are proposed for the portion of the
road extending from the eastern terminus of the project area to the existing landfill, and measuring
approximately 0.50 mile in length
. The remaining portions of the project area have been identified for
upgrades and/or realignment. With reference to the current project
-
related features,
archaeologists and
historians surveyed
the portion of the project area subject to improvements
for
compliance with
Section 106
of the
NHPA.

The portion of the project area without defined project impacts was addressed as a Study
Area for the purposes of a constraints analysis, and to assist in identifying potential cultural resources work if
project
-
re
lated features are identified in the future.

The
draft APE

consists of the length of the road alignment extending from Ruby Slough to the existing landfill
with a 100 foot buffer extending in all directions from the road centerline to account for propose
d road
features, road repairs, equipment staging, lay
-
down of equipment, and potential indirect effects. Vertical
disturbances associated with the project vary greatly within the APE.


Throughout the majority of the APE,
vertical impacts are minimal and ar
e associated with disturbances to construct the roadway base and
drainage ditches.

However, in some portions of the APE, maintaining the design profile grade resulted in
significant vertical impacts.


In these areas, road cuts extend disturbances to an ap
proximate maximum
depth of 13 feet, with a range from about two feet to 13 feet below the ground surface.


The other portion of
the project area has been designated
as
t
he Study Area
,

and
is the length of the road alignment extending
from the landfill to t
he eastern terminus of the project area, where the road intersects with Ruby
-
Poorman
Road, with a 100 foot buffer extending in all directions from the road centerline.

The APE totals

77.9

acres

and

the Study Area measures 11.35 acres. The APE and the Stu
dy Area were addressed
through existing
literature searches and records reviews, as well as
a

pedestrian survey
.

The investigation included

a

records
search
of the
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey

(AHRS) database
and
a
literature review conducted
by B
old
P
eak
Archaeological

S
ervice
s
(
BPAS)
.

In addition,
topographic maps,
current aerial photography,
past memorandums, and
reports associated with the project and vicinity were
reviewed.
I
nformation
-
scoping efforts were also undertaken with residents of the Nat
ive Village of Ruby.
The
records search and literature review indicated that no cultural resource investigations in the AHRS database
have taken place
within

the APE

or Study Area
, and that
no previously recorded resources are known within
the APE. However,
one

previously recorded resource
is

known within the
Study Area

(RUB
-
027)
.
RUB
-
027
consists of the Poorman
-
Ruby Summer Connecting Trail, which is a trail segment of the larger Iditarod Tr
ail
system. This trail segment has not been formally evaluated for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP); however, other summer segments of the Iditarod National Historic Trail have been
determined eligible for the NRHP (
Grover

2012
). This trail segment trends north
-
south along
Ruby
-
Poorman
Road, which is an

existing dirt road
found within the eastern
-
most portion of the
Study Area


Th
e investigation also included
a

pedestrian

survey of the APE
and the Study Area
w
ith
exploratory
Shovel
Test Pits (STPs)
in the APE
to assess the subsurface for the presence or absence of cultural resources.
This
field effort
was completed on
September 23, 24 and 25
, 2012
,

and
yielded negative results for
archaeological resources. During the field e
ffort, an Atkins Architectural Historian also examined the APE
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

iii


and the Study Area
for the presence of built
-
environment resources, and confirmed that no such historic
resources were present within the APE

or the Study Area
. As a result of the investigatio
n, including
background research and
a field
survey,
no cultural resources were identified within the APE, including
Historic Properties pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. For this reason, no additional work or studies are
recommended within the APE pri
or to project implementation. I
f buried cultural materials

are encountered
during project
-
related ground
-
disturbance
; work should stop in the area of the find until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the inadvertent disc
overy.

With reference to the Study Area, the results of the background research and field survey revealed that one
previously recorded
cultural resource
is located within the eastern
-
most extent of the Study Area

(RUB
-
027).
This resource may qualify as
a
Historic Propert
y

under
Section 106 of the NHPA.
As previously stated, the
current project does not include upgrades
or project
-
related impacts
within the Study Area. In the event that
this area is
identified for improvements in the future, an APE will need to be delineated to include the
maximum horizontal and vertical extent of impacts associated with the proposed activities. Depending on
the extent of vertical disturbances, exploratory subsurface

testing may be required to determine the effects of
the
activities

on archaeological resources. In addition, a formal NRHP assessment will be required for RUB
-
027, and if found eligible, the potential for the project
-
related activities to affect the uniq
ue qualities which
render RUB
-
027

eligible for the NRHP will need to be completed to determine effects to Historic Properties
pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.




Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

iv


Table of
C
ontents


Page

Executive
Summary

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........

ii

1.

Introduction and Project Description

................................
................................
................................
.

1

1.1.

Project Location

................................
................................
................................
...............

1

1.2.

Project Description

................................
................................
................................
...........

1

1.3.

Establishment of the Area of Potential Effect and Study Area

................................
.........

5

1.3.1.

Area of Potential Effect

................................
................................
................................
....

5

1.3.2.

Study Area

................................
................................
................................
........................

5

1.4.

Cultural Resources Staff

................................
................................
................................
..

5

2.

Regulatory Framework

................................
................................
................................
........................

5

2.1.

Federal Level Evaluations

................................
................................
................................

7

2.1.1.

Criteria Considerations

................................
................................
................................
.....

7

2.1.2.

Thresholds of Significance

................................
................................
...............................

8

2.1.3.

Federal Criteria of Adverse Effects

................................
................................
..................

8

2.1.4.

If Adverse Effects Are Found

................................
................................
...........................

8

3.

Environmental Setting

................................
................................
................................
.........................

9

4.

Local Culture and History
................................
................................
................................
....................

9

4.1.

Precontact Period

................................
................................
................................
.............

9

4.2.

Ethnohistoric and Historic Periods

................................
................................
.................

10

5.

Methods

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

11

5.1.

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
(AHRS) Database
Search

................................
.....

11

5.2.

Native American Coordination

................................
................................
.......................

12

5.3.

Pedestrian Survey

................................
................................
................................
..........

12

5.3.1.

Archaeological Resource

................................
................................
...............................

12

5.3.2.

Historic Resources

................................
................................
................................
.........

12

6.

Results
................................
................................
................................
................................
.................

13

6.1.

AHRS Database Search

................................
................................
................................

13

6.
2.

Native American Coordination

................................
................................
.......................

14

6.3.

Pedestrian Survey

................................
................................
................................
..........

15

6.3.1.

Archaeological Resources

................................
................................
.............................

15

6.3.2.

Historic Resources

................................
................................
................................
.........

18

7.

Conclusions and Recommendations

................................
................................
...............................

21

8.

References

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........

21


Appendix A: Confidential BPAS Technical Let
ter Report

Appendix B: Photographs

Appendix
C
: Native American Coordination

Appendix
D
: Professional Qualifications

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

v


Tables


Page

Tabl
e 1
Known Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the APE

................................
................................
........

13

Table 2 Shovel Test Pit Excavations

................................
................................
................................
...............

1
6


Figures


Page

Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map

................................
................................
................................
.............................

2

Figure 2 Project Location Map


Topographic Base

................................
................................
.........................

3

Figure 3 Project Location Map


Aerial Base

................................
................................
................................
....

4

Figure 4 APE Map


Topographic Base

................................
................................
................................
............

6

Figure 5 STP Location Map


Aerial Base

................................
................................
................................
......

20








Atkins

22 October 2012

1


1.

I
ntroduction

and Project Description

This report document
s a cultural resources investigation

for the
Ruby Slough Road

Project and

was
completed in accordance with

Section 106 of

the NHPA
,
as amended.

Th
e report

documents Atkins’ effort to
identify
cultural resources, including Historic Properties, which may be affected by the proposed project.

The FHWA
-
WFLHD, in coopera
tion with the
FLH, IRR Program
, is proposing to repair and reconstruct
approximately
three miles of

the Ruby Slough access road
. The Ruby Slough R
oad is used for subsistence
activities and access to the gravel source

utilized by the Native Village o
f Ruby.

Portions of the

existing road

require

maintenance work
and approximately one mile of the
roadway

requires

redesign to allow for other
vehicles
, such as dump trucks,

to access the existing gravel source in the Slough
.

This report contains eight sections.
Following this Introduction and Project Description, Section 2 describes
the Regulatory Framework.

Section 3 includes a brief discussion on the physical setting, including the
climate, geology, soils, and flora
,

and Section 4 presents the cultural history
of the area.

The methods for this
project are outlined in Section 5, and the results are provided in Section 6. Section 7 states conclusions and
recommendations, and references cited follow in Section 8.


1.1.

Project Location

The
proposed
Ruby Slough Road

Proj
ect is located
in the
Yukon
-
Koyukuk Census Area
,

approximately

50
air miles east of Galena and 230 air miles west of Fairbanks
,
within
the
central

portion of Alaska

(Figure 1).

The project site is found within
Section 12 of Township 9 South, Range 16 East and Sections 7, 8 and 17 of
Township 9 South, Range 17 East as depicted on the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Ruby C
-
6 topographic
quadrangle
(1:63,360)
and Sections 8, 9, and 17 of Township 9 South, Range 17 Ea
st as found on the
USGS
Ruby C
-
5 topographic quadrangle

(1:63,360)
, Kateel River Meridian

(Figure 2)
.

Specifically, the
project site is located
in the in Native Village of Ruby
on the south bank of the Yukon River,
and
in the
Kilbuck
-
Kuskokwim Mountains
.

The eastern terminus of the road is situated approximately
1.5 miles south
of the
main village
, and the road
extends west from
Ruby
-
Poorman Road

to Ruby Slough

(Figure 3).

The
current, as
-
built road is found within a

200 foot right of way clearance grant
ed from the Dineega Corporation

(
WFLHD 2010)
.

1.2.

Project Description

The proposed project is intended to improve
approximately
three miles

of the

Ruby Slough Access Road.


The current, as
-
built road is found within a 200 foot right of way clearance granted from the Dineega
Corporation.


The Corporation gave written permission for a road easement to the Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium to cons
truct the road.

It was constructed in 2005 and it was graded to remove ruts and
reshape the road for the first time in 2009 (WFLHD 2010).

Approximately two miles of the roadway,
extending west from near

the existing landfill, require

soil stabilization, in
stallation of ditches for erosion
control, and routine maintenance activities such as clearing and brushing.


Improvements to this section of
roadway will be recommended in a design narrative
, and are confined to the portion of the existing road
extending
to the west from the landfill
.


No improvements are presently proposed for the portion of the road
extending from the eastern terminus of the project area to the landfill
, and measuring approximately 0.50
mile in length
.
The final mile of the roadway, ext
ending to the Slough, includes a dirt road that is currently
too steep for vehicles other than four wheel drive trucks and All Terrain Vehicles.

This portion of the road
requires reconstruction including realignment to allow for other vehicles, such as dum
p trucks, to access the
existing gravel source in the Slough utilized by the Native Village of Ruby. The project objective is to provide
a package to improve roadway
and drainage conditions in the one

mile reconstruction area, as well as
modify the horizon
tal and vertical alignment in order to maintain a reasonable grade for gravel haul from
Ruby Slough.


In addition, these improvements will allow for easier and safer travel for the local population to
access the Slough for hunting and other subsistence act
ivities.

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

2


Figure
1

Project Vicinity Map


Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

3


Figure
2

Project Location Map


Topographic Base

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

4


Figure
3

Project Location Map


Aerial Base



Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

5


1.3.

Establishment of the Area of Potential Effect

and Study
Area

The project area consists of a roadway extending for approximately three miles, and trending west from near
the Native Village of Ruby to Ruby Slough. Currently, no improvements are proposed for the portion of the
road extending from the e
astern terminus of the project area to the existing landfill, and measuring
approximately 0.50 mile in length. The remaining portions of the project area have been identified for
upgrades and/or realignment. With reference to the current project
-
related
features, the portion of the
project area subject to improvements was investigated as an
APE

as defined under Section 106 of the
NHPA. The portion of the project area without defined project impacts was addressed as a Study Area for
the purposes of a constraints analysis, and to assist in identifying potential cultural resources work if project
-
related features are identified in the future.

1.3.1.

Area of Potential Effect

A

critical step in conducting cultural resources studies in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA is to
establish the APE. The APE is the area that may
be impacted by the project (
undertaking) and includes the
area
for which

a proposed project
may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of
Historic Properties.
The APE consists of the
roadway
extending from Ruby Slough to the existing landfill
with
a 100 foot

buffer extending in all directions from the road centerline to account for proposed road features,
road repairs, equipment staging, lay
-
down of equipment, and potential indirect effects.
Vertical disturbances
associated with the project vary greatly withi
n the APE.


Throughout the majority of the APE, vertical impacts
are minimal and are associated with disturbances to construct the roadway base and drainage
ditches.

However, in some portions of the APE, maintaining the design profile grade resulted in si
gnificant
vertical impacts.


In these areas, road cuts extend disturbances to an approximate maximum depth of 13
feet.
The APE totals
77.9

acres, and is shown on a topographic map
i
n Figure 4. Areas to be subjected to
maximum vertical disturbances are sh
own
in red
on Figure 4 and these disturbances range from
approximately two feet to 13 feet in depth.

1.3.2.

Study Area

The Study Area is
defined as
the length of the road alignment extending from the landfill to the eastern
terminus of the project area, where the

road intersects with Ruby
-
Poorman Road, with a 100 foot buffer
extending in all directions from the road centerline.
The Study Area measures 11.35 acres

and is depicted
on a topographic map in Figure 4.

1.4.

Cultural Resources Staff

An AHRS database search, a

cultural resources literature review
,

and
a
brief cultural history
were
compiled
by BPAS
Archaeologist

Margan Allyn Grover
, M.A., RPA

in
September and October

2012

(Grover 2012
[
Confidential
Appendix A])
. Atkins
Archaeologist

Jennifer M. Sanka
, M.A., RPA

and Atkins Architectural
Historian/Archaeologist M. Kelley Russell, M.S.

conducted the pedestrian survey
for
archaeological

resources
on September 23, 24 and 25, 2012.

Ms. Russell additionally inspected the APE for the presence
of built
-
environment resour
ces of historic age during the survey.
Ms. Sanka
authored

this report
and
incorporated contributions from BPAS
.


Professional qualifications for all team members are located in Appendix

D
.

2.

Regulatory Framework

The following federal criteria were used to
evaluate the significance of potential effects to cultural resources,
including any Historic Properties, for the proposed project. An effect would be considered adverse if the
proposed project affects the qualities that render a resource eligible for listi
ng in the NRHP.

The NRHP is a

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

6


Figure
4

APE Map


Topographic Base



Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

7


listing of resources found to be significant as determined by the evaluation processes outlined herein.

2.1.

Federal Level Evaluations

Federal agencies are required to

consider the effects of their actions on Historic Properties and afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings under NHPA Section

(§)

106. Federal agencies are responsible for initiati
ng NHPA §

106
review and completing the steps in the process that are outlined in the regulations. They must determine
whether
NHPA §

106 applies to a given project and, if so, initiate review in consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (S
HPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Federal agencies
are also responsible for involving the public and other interested parties. Furthermore, NHPA § 106 requires
that any federal or federally assisted undertaking, or any undertaking re
quiring federal licensing or
permitting, consider the effect of the action on Historic Properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Under the
CFR, 36 CFR Part 800.8, federal agencies are specifically encouraged to coordinate compliance with NHPA
§

106 an
d the NEPA process. The implementing regulations “Protection of Historic Properties” are found in
36 CFR Part 800. Resource eligibility for listing
i
n the NRHP is detailed in 36 CFR Part 63 and the criteria for
resource evaluation are found in 36 CFR Part
60.4 [a

d].

The NHPA established the NRHP as the official federal list for cultural resources that are considered
important for their historical significance. To be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, properties must
meet specific criteria for his
toric significance and possess certain levels of integrity of form, location, and
setting. The criteria for listing
i
n the NRHP are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildi
ngs, structures
,
objects
and landscapes
that
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In addition, a
resource must meet one or all of these eligibility criteria:

A.

Is associated with events that hav
e made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B.

Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

C.

Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work
of a
master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.

D.

Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criterion D is usually re
served for archaeological resources. Eligible properties must meet at least one of the
criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties
and conveys its historical character.

2.1.1.

Criteria
Considerations

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, buildings that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed
historic buildings, prop
erties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved
significance within the past 50 years are generally not considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such
properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet

the criteria or if they fall within the
following categories:

A.

A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical
importance.

B.

A building or structure removed from its original location which is

primarily significant for architectural
value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

C.

A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or
bu
ilding associated with his or her productive life.

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

8


D.

A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from
age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

E.

A reconstructed

building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the
same association has survived.

F.

A property primarily commemorative in
intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it
with its own exceptional significance.

G.

A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

2.1.2.

Thresholds of Significance

In consultation with the

SHPO/THPO and other entities that attach religious and cultural significance to
identified Historic Properties, the Agency shall apply the criteria of adverse effect to Historic Properties within
the APE. The Agency official shall consider the views of co
nsulting parties and the public when considering
adverse effects.

2.1.3.

Federal Criteria of Adverse Effects

Under federal regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.5, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking alters, directly
or indirectly, any of the characteristics of

a Historic Property that qualifies the property for inclusion in the
NRHP in a manner that diminishes the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration will be given to all qualifying

characteristics of a Historic
Property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the
property’s eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects
caused by the und
ertaking that may occur later in time, be further removed in distance, or be cumulative.

According to 36 CFR Part 800.5, adverse effects on Historic Properties include, but are not limited to, those
listed below:



Physical destruction of or damage to all or

part of the property.



Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous
material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the US Secretary
of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties per 36 CFR Part 68 and applicable
guidelines.



Removal of the property from its historic location.



Change of the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting that
contr
ibute to its historic significance.



Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s
significant historic features.



Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and det
erioration are
recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian Tribe or Native
Hawaiian Organization.



Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally
enforceable r
estrictions or conditions to ensure long term preservation of the property’s historic
significance.

2.1.4.

If Adverse Effects Are Found

If adverse effects are found, the agency official shall continue consultation as stipulated at 36 CFR

Part
800.6. The agency official shall consult with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to develop
alternatives to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to resources.
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

9


According to 36 CFR Part 800.14(d), if adverse e
ffects cannot be avoided then standard treatments
established by the ACHP may be used as a basis for Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

According to 36 CFR Part 800.11(e), the filing of an approved MOA, and appropriate documentation,
concludes the §

106 proces
s. The MOA must be signed by all consulting parties and approved by the ACHP
prior to construction activities. If no adverse affects are found and the SHPO/THPO or the ACHP do not
object within 30 days of receipt, the agencies’ responsibilities under §

106

will be satisfied upon completion
of report and documentation as stipulated in 36 CFR Part 800.11. The information must be made available
for public review upon request, excluding information covered by confidentiality provisions.

3.

Environment
al

S
etting

Th
e proposed project is located
in the Native Village of Ruby within the
Kilbuck
-
Kuskokwim Mountains
. The
village is situated
on th
e south bank of the Yukon River
, approximately 65 river miles upstream from Galena
and 125 miles downstream from Tanana. The main village is found in a small valley between high bluffs and
in the drainage of Ruby Creek.
Terrain in the region is characterized by rugged topographic relie
f, ranging
from approximately 150 feet in elevation at the Yukon River to an excess of 1,500 feet at nearby mountain
peaks. In this area, the Yukon River is bound by high, steep bluffs and relatively narrow
,

low
-
lying
floodplains
.
The project area occurs

at elevations ranging between approximately 200 and 726 feet on the
border between the Yukon River Lowlands and Kuskokwim

Mountains ecoregions (ADF
G

2006).



Climate of the region is characterized as
Continental

in the subarctic interior region of the sta
te (
Alaska
DOT&PF 2007)
.
The nearest climate station to the project
area

is l
ocated in Galena
,

and d
ata from this site
indicates that average temperatures range from
-
10.
0


F in January to 60.0


F in July
.


Annual precipitation
averages roughly 13.21 inch
es.


July and August have historically been the wettest months (WRCC 2012
;
Atkins 2012
).



Overburden

in the uplands
of the region
is typically shallow loess and colluvial or residual weathered rock
with common exposures of bedrock, while the Yukon floodpl
ain sediment is stratified with a base of well
-
sorted alluvial gravel and upper layers of silt and sandy silt (Alaska DOT&PF 2007).
Soils in the area have
not been specifically mapped
,

but are generally considered to be Map Unit IQ3
-

Typic Cryofluvents,
loamy
nearly level, near the Yukon River, and Map Unit IQ6


Histic pergelic cryaquepts, loamy, nearly level to
rolling on adjacent hillslopes (SCS 1979).


Field observations found project area soils were generally a gr
a
y
silty loam mineral soil which was
overlain on the hillslopes by an organic mat of mosses, lichens, shrubs, and
grasses

(Atkins 2012)
.



The project area occurs in rolling, densely forested terrain dominated by black spruce (
Picea mariana
),
Alaskan paper birch (
Betula neoalaskana
), alder (
Alnus

sp.), and Labrador tea (
Ledum groenlandicum
)
(Atkins 2012).

4.

L
ocal Culture and History

The following
section provides an

overview of the prehistoric and historic context in which to understand the
relevance of sites found in the general vicinity of th
e

project
area
.

The text is adapted from a cultural history

provided by BPAS, which is included as
Confidential
Appendix A to this report (Grover 2012).


4.1.

Precontact Period

The lower Yukon River Drainage was unglaciated during the second half of the
Wiscon
sin

glacial stage. The
earliest accepted occupation dates of the Yukon River region are between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. By
10,700 years before present (BP), obsidian trading among occupants of the region had commenced, and the
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

10


Paleo
-
Arctic tradition

appeared (McFadyen Clark 1996). Between 8,000 and 4,000 BP, the region was
occupied by people of the Late Tundra and Northern Archaic traditions. Important Late Tundra materials
have been reported at Kagati Lake in southwest Alaska and
at
several locati
ons in south
-
central Alaska,
while Paleo
-
Arctic and Northern Arctic material has been reported at Onion Portage and Trail Creek Cave to
the north (Ackerman 2001; Peregrine 2001a and 2001b). The Arctic Small Tool tradition (approximately
4,700 to 2,500 BP)
is known for diminutive tools marked by long parallel flake scars, particularly bipointed
projectile points, side blades, small burins and scrapers, and polished adze blades. Many Arctic Small Tool
camp sites have been reported across Alaska
, as well as
a
few moderately
-
sized rectangular houses.

These
sites include Onion Portage, Mosquito Lake, and Punyik Point in the Brooks Range,

various sites on the
Seward Peninsula and Norton Sound, and south to Brooks River and the

Naknek River (Dumond 2001a).

The Norton Tradition (3,000
-
1,000 BP) is occasionally subsumed under the Arctic Small Tool tradition and
can be divided into Choris, Ipiutak, and Norton subtraditions. The Norton tradition is known for antler and
ivory projectiles, labrets, stone lamps, fl
aked projectile points and side blades. Large and well
-
stratified
Norton Tradition sites have been reported at Point Hope, Cape Krusenstern, Cape Nome and Onion Portage
to the north, and Brooks and Naknek Rivers to the south. While distinctive open
-
work iv
ory carvings and
highly stylized anthropomorphic art are attributed only to
the
Ipiutak subtradition (1,700 to 1,100 BP), the
Choris subtradition (3,000 to 2,500 BP) is marked by large elliptical semisubterranean houses and fiber
-
tempered pottery with line
ar
-
stamped decoration. The more recent Norton subtradition (2,500
-
1,000 BP) also
included linear stamped pottery, but utilitarian and check
-
stamped pottery has also been reported. Norton
subtradition houses had long, sloping entrance tunnels (Dumond 2001b)
.



After AD 1,000, Proto
-
Athabaskan cultures spread across

the interior of Alaska.
Settlements are small, yet
dis
pers
ed over a wider area, indicating an expanding resource base. The material culture included copper
tools and adornments, barbed bone and
antler projectile points, bone and stone hide
-
processing tools,
coarse pottery, pecked and ground adzes, and flaked tools. There was increasing and continuing regional
specialization until the historic period. Trading fairs and partnerships not only linked

the peoples of the
interior river systems to the coast, but also to the Chukchi trade (Clark 2001).


4.2.

Ethnohistoric and Historic Periods

Generally, people in the Yukon
-
Kuskokwim region were contacted by Russians and other Europeans
relatively late. Captai
n James Cook was the first European to explore Alaska’s northwest coast in 1778,
when he traveled as far north as Icy Cape. The next expedition into the region did not take place until 1818,
when Russian explorer Eremei Rodionov traveled up the Nushagak Ri
ver, portaged, and then sailed down
the Kuskokwim River. There were several other minor expeditions the same year. Between 1818 and 1841,
the Russian
-
American Company built several posts in southwest Alaska and began exploring and trading
more regularly in

the region. However, little information about was recorded about the indigenous residents
of the area until Lavrentiy Zagoskin was sent to travel the region’s river systems in 1848
. During his travels,
Zagoskin was charged with collecting

ethnographic sa
mples and information on traditional trade routes
between Alaska and Siberia (Oswalt 1999). Zagoskin (1967) noted a camp just upriver from modern Ruby
and recorded the local name (Melozi) of the Melozitna River

found

just north of modern
-
day Ruby.

Early in

the historic period, the Ruby area was occupied by people speaking the Upper Koyukon dialect of
Athabaskan (McFadyen Clark 1981). Near the end of the
nineteenth

century, Koyukon people began
expanding their territory from the upper river into the middle s
tretches of the Yukon. In

addition to
subsistence pursuits, they supplemented their economic activities
beginning in the late 1800s
with trapping,
supplying fish and cutting wood for the steamboats navigating the Yuko
n

(Mercier 1986). As the Western
Union
Telegraph Company crew worked along Yukon River in 1865
-
67, they noted several settlements and
seasonal camps of Koyukon people along the Yukon, but none in the immediate area of Ruby (McFadyen
Clarke 1996; Mercier 1986; Mobley 2005).

By the beginning of t
he
twentieth

century, the Athabaskan settlement of
Lozi
-
koket
was established at Ruby.
Gold was discovered there in 1907, but deposits were too small to garner much attention. Ruby became an
important supply post after larger strikes were made downstream i
n 1911 (Orth 1971). Prospectors flowed
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

11


into the area and within a year the town’s population
increased substantially, from

less than 200 to more than
1,000
people
(Orth 1971; Mobley 200
5
). The community provided supplies, entertainment, and
communication to the miners downstream, including a newspaper, telephone, and telegraph lines that
connected to the
Washington
-
Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System

(
WAMCAT
)

line to St. Michael
(M
obley 2005). A post office opened in Ruby in 1912 (Orth 1971).

By 1917, gold production along the area
’s

creeks was

in

declin
e and t
he number of
Ruby
residents dropped
to 128 by 1920 (Orth 1971). Almost all the commercial buildings along Ruby’s Front Stre
et were destroyed
by a fire in 1929, and the
remaining buildings

were destroyed by a spring flood two years later. Until World
War II, the Ruby economy generally relied on small gold operations along the river. Residents of Kokrines
then began to move to R
uby in the 1950s, signaling a new direction for the town (Mobley 2005). The
population continues to be less than 200

in the village
, and most residents are members of the Nowitna
-
Koyukuk band of Koyukon Athabaskan. The city was incorporated in 1973, the
Al
aska Native Claims
Settlement Act

(
ANCSA
)

village corporation is Dineega Corporation, and the federally recognized tribe is the
Native Village of Ruby (DCCED 2012).

5.

M
ethods

The primary purpose of this cultural resources
investigation

is to determine whethe
r cultural resources,
including Historic Properties, are located within or near the APE and whether these resources will be or
could be affected by project implementation. To accomplish this, research

and

a
pedestrian
survey
,

including
exploratory STPs
,

w
ere

co
mpleted

according to certain regulatory and professional standards. The results of
these efforts assist in determining if resources are present, and if present, considered eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP. This allows for the consideration of the e
ffect of the proposed project
i
n NRHP
-
listed or
-
eligible
resources (Historic Properties). The assessment included the following tasks:



Establishment of
the
APE for the proposed project.



Delineation of the Study Area in association with the project.



Review

of regional history and previous cultural resource sites and studies within the APE
, Study Area,

and the vicinity.



Information
-
scoping efforts with local Native American
individuals

and groups
.




Co
mpletion of

a

pedestrian survey
to
assess the ground surfa
ce

of the APE

and Study Area
for
indications of archaeological resources
.



Excavation and examination of soils from

STPs

to
assess the subsurface
of the APE.



Evalua
tion of
the potential for the proposed project to affect Historic Properties.



Develop
recommendations associated with impacts to existing cultural resources following the guidelines
as outlined in the Regulatory Framework

(Section 2)
.

5.1.

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey

(AHRS) Database
Search

The primary purpose of
AHRS

database
search is to d
etermine what cultural resources have been recorded
in the vicinity of or within the APE, and whether known resources will be or could be affected by project
implementation.
An AHRS database search, a cultural resources literature review
,

and a
brief cultu
ral history
were
compiled by BPAS Archaeologist Margan Allyn Grover in
September and October

2012 (Grover 2012
[
Confidential
Appendix A]).

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

12


5.2.

Native American
Coordination

Coordination with local Native American individuals and groups
occurred through
informa
l
information
-
scoping efforts undertaken by Atkins via face
-
to
-
face conversations, phone calls and emails with residents of
the Native Village of Ruby. These efforts occurred in September and October of 2012 to obtain data
pertaining to the historical and cu
rrent use of the roadway and vicinity.
Information was additionally
requested about the subsistence
activities undertaken

in the
v
illage.

5.3.

Pedestrian Survey

5.3.1.

Archaeological Resource

The primary purpose of the survey is to locate and document previously re
corded or new
archaeological

resource
s
that are more than 50 years old within the APE

and Study Area
, and to determine whether such
resources will be or could be impacted by project implementation.
The
APE
and Study Area
w
ere

subjected
to a pedestrian surv
ey
on September 23, 24, and 25, 2012
using a modified transect method to assess the
ground surface for indications of archaeological resources. Due to the presence of dense vegetation in
much of the project area, and a resultant lack of surface visibility
, meandering transects were employed
following the proposed alignment. Increased attention was provided to areas cleared of vegetation and
exhibiting comparatively higher percentages of ground surface visibility. In these areas, such as the existing
dirt

road(s), transects were com
pleted with two to
15 meter spacing.

Judgemental
STPs

were employed throughout the
APE

to assess the presence or absence of
subsurface
archaeological resources and/or cultural deposits.
STPs were focused in areas deemed to hav
e a higher
probability for encountering cultural materials, such as nearer water resources (Ruby Slough) and in areas
with a higher probability for encountering intact deposits, such as areas lacking comparatively significant
slopes.
These areas were dete
rmined through a review of USGS topographic maps and information
obtained on project vicinity soils from a review of geotechnical reports for the area prior to the field visit
(
Alaska DOT&PF 2007). Adjustments were made in the field according to existing
conditions, such as the
presence or absence of standing water.
In the

higher probability areas
, STPs were generally completed at
systematic 100 meter intervals. Lower probability areas, including portions of the APE exhibiting
comparatively significant s
lopes, were not subjected to systematic subsurface examination.
STPs measured
approximately 30 centimeters by 30 centimeters, and were completed to a depth of 20 centimeters below the
existing ground surface
. A
ll soils were screened using a ¼ inch mesh hand
-
screen. Information was
recorded at each STP regarding the composition and color of the observed soils (Munsell Soil Color Chart
Classifications), and location data was collected. Photographs were also take
n of each STP upon
completion. Additional photographs were taken throughout the course of the field effort to document existing
conditions within the
APE
, and these photographs are included as Appendix B to this report
.

In the event that previously unknow
n
archaeological
resources were detected during the survey, resources
would be recorded onto
AHRS site cards
in accordance with
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
instructions
.


5.3.2.

Historic Resources

In September

of 2012, Atkins Architectural Historian
/
Archaeologist

M. Kelley Russell
examined current aerial
photography and USGS topographic maps of the
project location and vicinity

to identify any standing
structures within the APE

and the Study Area
. During the
course of the
field visit
,
Ms. Russell cond
ucted a
pedestrian survey of the APE
and the Study Area
in order to locate and document histo
ric structures
.

In the event that previously unknown
historic
resources were detected during the survey, resources would be
recorded onto
AHRS site cards
in accor
dance with
Alaska Office of History and Archaeology instructions
.


Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

13


6.

R
esults

6.1.

AHRS Database

Search

BPAS Archaeologist
Margan Allyn Grover completed the AHRS database search in
September and October

of 2012

(Grover 2012)
.

The results of the search are summarized below and a map detailing the location of
known cultural resources in relation to the project
area

is provided
as
Figure
2

in Confidential Appendix A.

The results of the AHRS database
search indicated that
no previ
ously recorded resources are located within
the APE and that
one
resource is known
within the eastern
-
most extent of the
Study Area

(RUB
-
027).
RUB
-
027

consists of the Poorman
-
Ruby Summer Connecting Trail, which is a trail segment of the larger Iditarod
Trail system. This trail segment has not been formally evaluated for inclusion in the N
RHP
; however, other
summer segments of the Iditarod National Historic Trail have been d
etermined eligible for the NRHP, such
as IDT
-
267 (Takotna
-
Nixon Fork Summer Trail
). The Iditarod National Historic Trail was designated as a
national historic trail in 1968, and eligible segments are typically associated with the establishment of
communities, economic development and early twentieth century expansion within the state.

RUB
-
027

trends north
-
south along
Ruby
-
Poorman Road, which is
an existing dirt road found within the eastern
-
most
portion of the
Study Area and approximately 0.50 mile east of the APE boundary.
Additional resources are
known within the general vicinity of

the APE and
Study Area, and these resources
are generally situated
nearer the main village site of Ruby
.

These known and previously recorded resources and their location
relative to the APE are presented below in Table 1.

The database search additionally

revealed that n
o cultural resource investigations have taken place within
the APE

or Study Area
. Instead, p
revious cultural resources work
in the vicinity
has been concentrated in
Ruby. Early large
-
scale surveys of the Yukon River by Fredrica de Laguna (
in
1935) and Ales Hrdlicka (in
the 1920s) included the Ruby area, but include little detailed information on cultural re
sources in the APE

or
Study Area
. More recently, several Bureau of Indian Affairs archaeological surveys have taken place in
Ruby, focus
ing on allotments (Crozier 1986a

and

1986b; Navarre 1989; Hoff 1990). No cultural resources
were reported by these surveys.

An historic period archaeological deposit was documented by Sattler and Gillespie (1997) on an allotment on
the east side of Ruby. Although the deposit was determined
in
eligible for the
NRHP
due to a loss of integrity,
they posited that there was potential

for similar intact deposits elsewhere in Ruby (Sattler and Gillespie
1997). Later, the Interior Regional Housing Authority (2005a

and

2005b) constructed new housing on town
lot sites. The project did not include archaeological surveys because no historic
buildings were known within
the lot sites. Similarly, the Yukon Koyukuk School District proposed to build new teacher housing in Ruby.
No survey was conducted
in association with this project
(Yukon Koyukuk School District 2006).

Mobley (2005) conducted a
pedestrian survey of a material source southwest of the Ruby airport. He
encountered no cultural resources in the

examined

project area. However, after interviewing residents
Mobley found the area was used for berry picking, wood cutting, and hunting small

game. Mobley
documented one historic building outside his project area (RUB
-
038, the Elite Bathes).

TABLE
1

KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE VICINITY OF THE APE
*

AHRS
Number

Resource Name

Resource Description

General Location

Within the APE?

RUB
-
004

Ruby

This resource encompasses the
historic section of Ruby, which was
established in 1911.

Ruby

No

RUB
-
008

Ruby Roadhouse

The Ruby Roadhouse was
established in 1911 along the
Ruby

No

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

14


Iditarod Trail.

RUB
-
016

Fisher Roadhouse

This resource is a

Roadhouse

established

along the Iditarod Trail.

Ruby

No

RUB
-
024

Ruby
-
Kaltag
Connecting Trail

Part of Iditarod Trail system.

Begins at Ruby and
follows the north
bank of the Yukon.

No

RUB
-
027

Poorman
-
Ruby
Summer
Connecting Trail

Part of Iditarod Trail system.

Trends north
-
south
and terminates in
Ruby.

No
.
However, t
his
resource trends north
-
south along the eastern
-
most edge of the
Study
Area
.

RUB
-
034

Kangas Dump

Kangas Dump in Ruby.

Ruby

No

RUB
-
038

The Elite Bathes

A post
-
Gold Rush building.

Ruby

No

*Inform
ation adapted from Grover 2012.

6.2.

Native American
Coordination

Coordination with local Native American individuals and groups occurred
through
informal
information
-
scoping
efforts undertaken by Atkins
via face
-
to
-
face

conversations,
phone calls and emails with
residents of
the Native Village of Ruby
.

These efforts occurred in
September and October

of 2012, and were completed
to obtain data pertaining to the historical and current use of the
roadway

and vicinity
.
During the course of
the fieldwork for this project (September 23, 24 and 25, 2012), At
kins
staff members
spoke with several
residents
about life in the
v
illage. These conversations generally occurred with family members of the
proprietor of the local boarding facility utiliz
ed by Atkins staff members, Ms. Rachael (Kangas) Wiehl. In
general, conversat
ions indicated that hunting
moose was
an important activity during
the

fall and that once a
moose was processed

the meat could feed numerous individuals throughout the
v
illage. O
ther subsistence
activities undertaken within the
v
illage and vicinity were fishing and the picking of seasonal berries.
During
conversations with Ms. Wiehl, she noted that the
existing, main v
illage

was built recently (during the 1900s),
rather than
the
current
village
site
being
of
strictly
Native origin. With regard for the roadway and immediate
vicinity, Ms. Wiehl relayed that she had taken her children to pick blueberries in the vicinity of the area
recently cleared for the redesign portion of the pr
oposed road

(Per
sonal Communication, Rachael Kangas
Wiehl
,

September 24 and 25
, 2012)
. A follow
-
up telephone call and email were completed on October 18,
2012 to confirm these conversations, as well as inquire about any additional individuals in the
v
illage
that

may have knowledge of the history of the area.

On October 18, 2012, Atkins
completed a telephone call to the Native Village of Ruby Tribal Council Office to
inquire about individuals
that

may have knowledge of the APE and vicinity. During th
is phone call, Atkins
spoke
with a
Tribal staff member

named

Brenda Ambrose
.

Ms. Ambrose
indicated

that there used to be a
summer village at the mou
th of Ruby Slough and that the N
ati
ve people

went there to fish. She did not know
the exact location, and r
ecalled that she read this information in a book about the history of Ruby

(Per
sonal
Communication, Brenda Ambrose, October 18
, 2012)
.
Thereafter, Atkins discussed the APE and vicinity
with
Audrey Madros, IRR Transportation Planning Technician.
Ms. Madro
s

noted that she was currently
working with the WFLHD to repair the road to be used for the transport of gravel. Regarding the history of
the area and the road, she explained that since the road was cut and brush was removed fairly recently, that
the road

itself was
not
used for historic purposes. When asked about the current use of the road by the local
population, she confirmed that people used to it access the area for moose hunting, but that she was
uncertain if they used it to access areas for other
activities, such as fishing

(Per
sonal Communication,
Audrey Madros, October 18
, 2012)
.

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

15


Finally, a phone call was placed to the Dineega Corporation general phone number on October 19, 2012 to
ask about the APE and vicinity. The telephone rang numerous time
s without an answer, and no voicemail
service was available for Atkins staff to leave a message. Additional attempts will be made to contact the
Corporation for information about the APE.

All Atkins correspondence has been incorporated into Appendix C.

6.3.

Pe
destrian Survey

6.3.1.

Archaeological Resources

Atkins Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA and Atkins Architectural Historian/Archaeologist M.
Kelley
Russell, M.S. conducted a

pedestrian survey of the APE
and the Study Area
on September 23, 24
and 25, 2012.
Photographs were taken to document existing conditions of the APE
and Study Area
and are
included as Appendix B to this report.
Due to heavy rains prior to the fieldwork and throughout the entirety of
September 23, 2012,
the soils within the APE

and Study Area

were extremely damp and were completely
saturated in
portions of the Slough
and in
low
-
lying areas.

The
project area

extends west from
Ruby
-
Poorman Road

to Ruby Slough. The eastern terminus is located
at the inter
section of several dirt roads and is found to the east of the existing village landfill.
No project
-
related improvements are proposed

within th
is

portion of the project area
, which

measur
es

approximately
0.
5
0

mile in length
.
This portion of the project area was addressed as a Study Area for the purposes of a
constraints analysis. In
the Study Area,

the road is in good condition and is found in
a
corridor cleared of
trees. The areas adjacent to the edges of the existing road
exhibit vegetation of varying density (Appendix
B: Photographs 1 and 2). From the landfill,
the existing road continues to the west to eventually connect to
the redesign and realignment portion of the project
. The

eastern boundary of the APE is situated

at the
existing landfill and extends to Ruby Slough
. T
he condition of the road
in the eastern portion of the APE
ranges from fair to good

(Appendix B: Photographs 3 through 8)
.
In some areas, significant erosion has
occurred
,

resulting in deep ruts on
either side of the existing road

(Appendix B: Photographs 3 through 6)
.
This portion of the
project area
exhibits

increasing
slope
s

in comparison to the Study Area
and vegetation of
varying density is located along the road

(Appendix B: Photographs 3 th
rough 6)
. The final mile of the APE
extending
south
west
and then west
to Ruby Slough is characterized by an area cleared of trees and
proposed for the realignment of the road. This area exhibits a dense mat of mosses and lichens and a
decreasing slope f
rom north to south

(Appendix B: Photographs 9 and 10)
. This cleared area connects to
an existing dirt road
extending west to Ruby Slough
surrounded by dense vegetation

(Appendix B:
Photographs 11 and 12)
.


The APE
and Study Areas were

examined using a
using a
modified transect method to assess the ground
surface for indications of archaeological resources. Due to the presence of dense vegetation
and standing
water
in
the

APE
and Study Area
, and a resultant lack of surface visibility, meandering transec
ts were
employed following the proposed alignment

(Appendix B: Photographs 9 through 12)
. Increased attention
was provided to areas cleared of vegetation and exhibiting comparatively higher percentages of ground
surface visibility. In these areas, such
as the existing dirt road(s) or cleared areas, transects were completed
with
two to
15 meter spacing.
Surface visibility in and near the existing roads ranged from approximately 50
to 100 percent
,

while areas exhibiting dense vegetation and standing water

displayed 0 to 10 percent
visibility
.

STPs were employed throughout the APE to assess the subsurface for the presence or absence of
archaeological resources and/or cultural deposits. STPs were focused in areas deemed to have a higher
probability for enco
untering cultural materials, such as nearer water resources (Ruby Slough) and in areas
with a higher probability for encountering intact deposits, such as areas lacking comparatively significant
slopes. In these areas, STPs were generally completed at sys
tematic 100 meter intervals. Exceptions to
100 meter intervals occurred when standing water or increasing slope was observed at the 100 meter
interval location. Lower probability areas, including portions of the APE exhibiting comparatively significant
s
lopes, were not subjected to examination via STPs.

STPs measured approximately 30 centimeters by 30
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

16


centimeters and were completed to a depth of 20 centimeters below the existing ground surface. All soils
were screened using a ¼ inch mesh hand
-
screen. A
total of 0.27 cubic meters of soil were examined
through the completion of STPs.
All soils were
redeposited

to each STP upon completion and the
topsoil/vegetation was returned to its original location.
Information was recorded at each STP regarding the
c
omposition and color of the observed soils (Munsell Soil Color Chart Classifications), and location data was
collected.
In general, the soils observed within the APE were damp to wet
, void of any
cultural

materials,

and consisted of gray brown silty loam
(Appendix B: Photographs 14 though 16). Information on
the
STPs
is

presented below in Table
2

and
their locations are

depicted on Figure 5.

During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric or historic age archaeological resources were detected within
the APE

or the Study Area
.

TABLE
2

SHOVEL TEST
PIT
EXCAVATIONS

Shovel
Test
Pit
(STP)

Date
Excavated

Depth
(cmbs)

Deposit
(Depth,
Munsell
C
lassification

and Soil
Texture)

Description

Location

(mE)
*

Location

(mN)

Findings

01

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/2 gray
brown silty
sand/loam


100 meters
east of Ruby
Slough/project
terminus,
in
existing road
and
surrounded by
tall grasses

0377069

7180767

Negative

0
2

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/2 gray
brown silty
sand/loam


100 meters
east of STP
01,
in existing
road and
surrounded by
tall grasses

0377169

7180757

Negative

03

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/1 gray
brown silty
sand
/loam

Soils moist in
comparison to
STPs 01 and 02

90 meters
east of STP
02 preceding
an increase in
slope to the
east, in

existing road
and
surrounded by
tall grasses

0377248

7180789

Negative

04

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/4 gray
brown silty sand

Soils extremely
wet
and nearing
standing water
at 20 cmbs

90 meters
east of STP
03 and south
of existing
road in the
proposed new
alignment

Immediate
vicinity
exhibits
0377313

7180680

Negative

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

17


standing
water in some
areas

05

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/3 gray
brown silty loam

Soils
wet

100 meters
east of the
intersection of
road repair
area and the
redesigned
portion

STP located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378261

7180584

Negative

06

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/2 gray
brown silty loam

Soils
wet

100 meters
east of STP
05 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378359

7180568

Negative

07

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 3/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils damp to
wet

100 meters
east of STP
06 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378458

7180545

Negative

08

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 3/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils damp to
wet

100 meters
east of STP
07 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378552

7180530

Negative

09

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/2 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils damp

250 meters
east of STP
08 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378886

7180499

Negative

10

24 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils damp

100 meters
east of STP
09 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0378982

7180515

Negative

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

18


11

24
September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/3
medium gray
brown silty loam

Soils wet

100 meters
east of STP
10 and STP
located
immediately
north of
existing road

0379068

7180449

Negative

12

24 September
2012

20

0
-
9:

2
.
5Y 4/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils damp

10
-
14:

2
.
5Y 4/4 yellow
gray brown silty
loam

Soils wet

15
-
20:

2
.
5Y 4/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

Soils wet

300 meters
east of STP
11

0379514

7180
026

Negative

13

25 September
2012

20

0
-
20:

2
.
5Y 4/3 light
gray brown silty
loam

700 meters
east of STP
12

0380
152

717968
5

Negative

14

25 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 4/4 yellow
gray brown silty
loam

100 meters
east of STP
13 and STP
located south
of existing
road

0380204

7179603

Negative

15

25 September
2012

20

0
-
20
:

2
.
5Y 5/4 yellow
gray brown silty
loam

Soils wet

100 meters
east of STP
14 and STP
located south
of existing
road

0380243

7179510

Negative

*All UTMs
preceded

by 05 W and with reference to NAD 83.

6.3.2.

Historic Resources

No historic structures were depicted on current aerial photography or USGS topographic maps of the project
area. During the pedestrian survey of the
APE

and Study Area
,
Atkins Architectural H
istorian
/Archaeologist
Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

19


M. Kelley Russell, M.S.

confirmed the find
ings of the photograph and map review, and
identified no
structures within the APE.

However,
t
he location of previously recorded resource RUB
-
027 was observed at
the eastern edge of the Study Area
. This resource currently consists

of a maintained north
-
s
outh trending
dirt road known as Ruby
-
Poorman Road.


Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

20


Figure
5

STP Location Map


Aerial Base



Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

21



7.

C
onclusions and Recommendations

In accordance with Section

106 of the NHPA, as amended, Atkins assessed the effects of the proposed
Ruby
Slough
Road Project
within

the APE.
In addition, Atkins completed
a constraint

analysis on the Study
Area to identify additional work or studies needed to demonstrate compliance with Section

106 of the NHPA
if project
-
related impacts are identified in

the future.

A
literature review and records search of the AHRS
database indicated
that
no cultural resource investigations have taken place
within

the APE

or the Study
Area

and
that
no previously recorded resources are known within the APE. However,
one
resource is known
within the
Study Area

(RUB
-
027)
. RUB
-
027 consists of the Poorman
-
Ruby Summer Connecting Trail, which
is a trail segment of the larger Iditarod Trail system. This trail

segment has not been formally evaluated for
inclusion in the NRHP; ho
wever, other summer segments of the Iditarod National Historic Trail have been
determined eligible for the NRHP (
Grover

2012). This trail segment trends north
-
south along
Ruby
-
Poorman
Road, which is
an existing dirt
road found within the eastern
-
most porti
on of the
Study Area
.

During the survey, no archaeological resources were detected and no structures were observed

within the
APE or the Study Area
.
However,
the location of previously recorded resource RUB
-
027 was observed at
the eastern edge of the
Study Area
.

As a result of the investigation, including background research and a
field survey, no cultural resources were identified within the APE, including Historic Properties pursuant to
Section 106 of the NHPA. For this reason, no additional work o
r studies are recommended within the APE
prior to project implementation. If buried cultural materials are encountered during project
-
related ground
-
disturbance; work should stop in the area of the find until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nat
ure
and significance of the inadvertent discovery.

With reference to the Study Area, the results of the background research and field survey revealed that one
previously recorded
cultural resource is located within the eastern
-
most extent of the Study Ar
ea (RUB
-
027).
This resource may qualify as a Historic Property under Section 106 of the NHPA. As previously stated, the
current project does not include upgrades or project
-
related impacts within the Study Area. In the event that
this area is identified

for improvements in the future, an APE will need to be delineated to include the
maximum horizontal and vertical extent of impacts associated with the proposed activities. Depending on
the extent of vertical disturbances, exploratory subsurface testing m
ay be required to determine the effects of
the activities on archaeological resources. In addition, a formal NRHP assessment will be required for RUB
-
027, and if found eligible, the potential for the project
-
related activities to affect the unique qualiti
es which
render RUB
-
027 eligible for the NRHP will need to be completed to determine effects to Historic Properties
pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.

8.

References

Ackerman, R
.
E.

2001


Late Tundra. In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 2 Arctic and Subarc
tic, edited by Peter N.

Peregrine and Melvin Ember, K
l
uwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. pp.111
-
115.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)

2006



Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources.


A
Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Juneau, Alaska
.


Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF)

2007



Geotechnical

Report: Ruby Airport Improvements (State Project No. 62605). Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Preconstruction Division, Northern Region. Report
on file at
Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration,

Anchorage.

August
2007
.

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

22


Ambrose, Brenda

2012


Native Village of Ruby Tribal Council
Office Staff Member, Ruby, Alaska. Personal communication
via telephone to Jennifer Sanka, Atkins. October 18, 2012.

Atkins

2012


Draft Wetland Delineation Report AK IRR RUBY 1(1)
Ruby Slough Road Project
, on file at Western
Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, Anchorage.

Clark,
D.

2001


Proto
-
Athapaskan. In
Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and
Subarctic, edited by Peter

N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember
, Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 169
-
178.


Crozier, S.
N.

1986a

Recommendation for Archeological Clearance

for Andrew J. Williams Ruby Townsite Parcel;

USS 5088, Tract A, Block
3, Lot 4. Prepared by Bureau of Indian Affairs Cultural Resource

Management Section, Anchorage.

1986b

Recommendation for Archeological Clearanc
e
for Donald and Clara Honea Ruby Townsite

Parcel;
USS 5088, Tract A, Block 4, Lot 2. Prepared by Bureau of Indi
an Affairs Cultural

Resource
Management Section, Anchorage.


Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (
DCCED
)

2012


Community Profiles. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic

Development.
http://www.dced.state.ak
.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm.

Dumond, D
.

2001a Western Arctic Small Tool. In
Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, edited

by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember
, Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp
213
-
224.

2001b Norton. In
Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, edited by Peter N.

Peregrine and Melvin Ember
, Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 135
-
151.


Grover, M
.
A.

2012


Ruby Slough Road Improvements
Cultural Resources

Literature Review and Documentation.

Prepared for Atkins and the
Western Federal Lands Highway

Division of the Federal Highway
Administration
.
Report
on file at
Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway
Administration, Anchorage and
Atkins,

San Bernardino, California.

October 2012.

Hoff, R
.

1990

Report of Section 106 Investigation for Billy and Eleanor Captain Ruby Townsite Parcel; USS

5088,
Tract A, Block 22, all lots. Prepared by Bureau of Indian Affairs Cultural Resource

Managemen
t
Section, Anchorage.


Interior Regional Housing Authority

2005a

Letter to Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer. From Katie Charlie, Planning

Assistant.
November 4, 2005. Fairbanks.

2005b

Letter to Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preser
vation Officer. From Katie Charlie, Planning

Assistant.
December 14, 2005. Fairbanks.


Madros, Audrey

2012


Native Village of Ruby
IRR Transportation Planning Technician,
Ruby, Alaska. Personal
communication via telephone to Jennifer Sanka, Atkins. Octobe
r 18, 2012.

McFadyen C
.
A.

1981

Koyukon. In
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6, Subarctic,
edited by J. Helm, W.C.

Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp. 582
-
601.

1996

Who Lived in This House? A Study of Koyukuk Ri
ver Semisubterranean Houses
. Mercury Series,

Ruby Slough
Road

Project


AK
IRR RUBY

1
(1
)

DRAFT

-

Cultural Resources Report







Atkins

22 October 2012

23


Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 153, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec,

Canada.


Mercier, F
.
X.

1986
Recollections from the Youkon: Memoires from the Years 1868
-
1885.
Translated by Linda Finn

Yarborough, Alaska Historical Commission Studies in History 188.


Mobley, C
.
M.

2005

Archaeological Survey for the Ruby Airport Improvements, Ruby, Alaska.
Prepared for DOWL

Engineers and Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Fairbanks.


Navarre, G
.
L.

1989

Recommendation for Clearance Jannis Captain Ruby Townsite Parcel; USS 5088, Tract A, Block 9,
Lot 3. Prepared by Bureau of Indian Affairs Cultural Resource Management Section, Anchorage.


Orth, D.J.

1971

Dictionary of Alaska Place Na
mes
. Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office.


Oswalt, W
.
H.

1999

Eskimos & Explorers
. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.


Peregrine, P
.
N.

2001a Northern Archaic. In
Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, edited
by Peter

N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember
, Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 127
-
128.


2001b Paleo
-
Arctic. In
Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, edited by Peter N.

Peregrine and Melvin Ember
, Kluwer Academic Press/
Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 167
-
168.


Sattler, R
.
A. and T
.

Gillespie

1997

Archaeological Inventory on a Restricted Townsite in Ruby, Alaska Cecilia Johnson, USS 5088,

Tract “B”, Lot 1, Ruby Townsite.
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Report #25, prepared
by Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks.


Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

1979

Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska. (
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/alask
a/
)


Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD)

2010


Ruby Trip Report,
documenting a site visit completed on
June 16
, 20
10
, on file at Western Federal

Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, Anchorage.

June 16
, 2010.

Western

Regional Climate Center (WRCC)


2012



Climate S
ummary for Galena Airport, Al
aska (Coop 503215).


Period of R
ecord 9/1/1949 thru
9/30/1993.


(
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi
-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ak32
15
)



Wi
ehl, Rachael Kangas

2012


Native Village of Ruby Resident and Proprietor of the Wild Iris Bed and Breakfast
,
Ruby
, Alaska.

Personal
communication via
conversation

to Jennifer Sanka, Atkins.
September 24
-
25
, 2012.

Yukon Koyukuk School District

2006

Letter to Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer. From Andrea Durny, Maintenance

Intern. June 13, 2006. Fairbanks.


Zagoskin, L.A.

1967

Lieutenant Zagoskin’s Travels in Russian America, 1842
-
1844.
Arctic Institute of North America

Tr
anslations from Russian Sources 7.





Appendices



Appendix A.

Confidential Appendix
BPAS Technical Letter
Report



Appendix B.

Photographs



Appendix C.

Native American
Coordination



Appendix D.

Professional
Qualifications


© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.


The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline

‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd
.


Jennifer M. Sanka

Atkins

650 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 450

San

Bernardino, CA

92408


j
ennifer.
s
anka
@a
tkinsglobal.com

909.890.5951

(office)