Loading...
17-105489-Archaeology Review of Woodbridge Business Park-02.16.23Revised 9-26-2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET DAHP Project Number: 2022-12-08307 Author: Jennifer M. Ferris Title of Report: Archaeology Review of Woodbridge Business Park Project Date of Report: December 23, 2022 County(ies): King Section: 15, 16, 21 Township: 21 N Range: 4 E Quad: Poverty Bay Acres: 400.07 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. 1 Technical Memorandum Date: Friday, December 23, 2022 Project: Woodbridge Business Park To: Dana Ostenson, Federal Way BP, LLC From: Jennifer Ferris, MA, RPA Subject Archaeology Review of Woodbridge Business Park Project USACE NWS No. NWS-2017-155 DAHP Project No. 2022-12-08307 Introduction HDR, Inc. (HDR) performed an assessment of the archaeological potential within the permit area for Federal Way BP, LLC’s proposed Woodbridge Business Park Project. The assessment consisted of reviewing existing cultural resources and survey records at the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD), which is managed by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), as well as reviewing two prior studies that have completed literature review and/or survey (Costa et al. 2018; Stipe 2017). Archival research performed by Sadlier et al. 2020 was also reviewed. This memorandum serves as a supplement to the ICF report that assesses the Project effects on historic resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the proposed area of potential effects (APE; refer to Tavel and Lentz 2022). A summary of the ICF effects assessment and recommendations of Project effects are also provided herein. Project Background The Woodbridge Business Park Project entails the redevelopment of the Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC) property located at the former Weyerhaeuser International Corporate Headquarters campus in the city of Federal Way, Washington (King County Parcels 162104-9013, -9056 and -9030). The development is located in the northwest ¼ of Section 15 and east ½ of Section 16 in Township 21 North, Range 4 East (Figure 1). The new Woodbridge Business Park would retain the existing WTC building but would require demolition of existing features and construction of new buildings, amenities, and associated sitework. The Project will require a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) nationwide permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of the federal review process, USACE is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 United States Code [USC] §§ 300101 to 307108) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800). Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (i.e., cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP). 2 The permit area includes approximately 97.67 acres where the following activities would take place: retention of the existing WTC building; demolition of existing parking lots; clearing, grading, and the construction of three new commercial buildings with parking lots, access roads, utility services, and stormwater facilities; and frontage improvements along Weyerhaeuser Way S. The project may also include construction of additional parking east of the WTC building. If implemented, construction would require tree removal, but the approximate 50-foot wooded buffer adjacent to the west side of Weyerhaeuser Way S would be retained. While the existing WTC building would remain, the parking lot associated with the WTC would be reconfigured to allow for construction of the three new buildings. As currently proposed, this reconfiguring would increase the number of parking stalls from 699 to 1,551, serving all four buildings. The number of parking stalls may change as the result of the City of Federal Way (City) land use entitlement and construction permit review process. The current design is shown in Figure 2 (from Tavel and Lentz 2022). Building 1 would be 605,195 square feet, Building 2 would be 240,675 square feet, and Building 3 would be 125,520 square feet. Building 1 would be located directly north of the WTC, and Buildings 2 and 3 would be located directly south of the WTC. The square footage of the buildings may change as the result of the City land use entitlement and construction permit review process. Under 36 CFR § 800.16(d), an APE is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” The proposed APE for this undertaking is inclusive of the permit area where potential physical, visual, auditory, or atmospheric effects may occur. The proposed APE also includes the larger boundary of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District, as described in Tavel and Lentz 2022, where Project-related visual, auditory, or atmospheric effects may occur, which comprises approximately 400 acres. No physical effects are anticipated outside the permit area. Assessment The proposed project is located within the traditional territories of the Muckleshoot and Puyallup, two Puget Salish or Lushootseed-speaking groups (Suttles and Lane 1990). HDR is not aware of any known ethnographic place names within the permit area or proposed APE, although there are several ethnographic place names recorded in the general vicinity including along Commencement Bay, Lake Doloff, and the Puyallup River and its tributaries (Dailey n.d.; Waterman et al. 2001), as listed below (non-English names are Lushootseed). • XaxtL! translates to “brushy,” which refers to Hylebos Creek. A Catholic missionary named Hylebos founded St. George’s School along this creek. • LtcELEb refers to the tideflats where shipyards stood during the early twentieth century. • Tcaua’lqo translate to “hidden water,” which refers to Brown’s Point on the north side of Commencement Bay. A freshwater spring was observed along the shoreline at this location, which was concealed by immature alder trees. • B1skwa’dis translates to “where there are whales,” and refers to Lake Dolloff, which is the source of Mill Creek. It was believed that whales used to swim into this lake via an underground channel. 3 • s’HAWHT’l-ahbch refers to the location in present-day northeast Tacoma where Hylebos Creek empties into Commencement Bay. People from this village were said to have moved across Puget Sound to establish a village at present-day Gig Harbor, TWAH-well-kawh. Silver salmon were plentiful in Hylebos Creek. According to the DAHP’s predictive model available on the WISAARD online database, the permit area and proposed APE have low risk for encountering buried archaeological deposits. Based on a WISAARD search performed on October 14, 2022, and the literature reviews performed by Stipe in 2017 and Costa et al. in 2018, there are no known archaeological resources within the permit area. There is one known archaeological resource within the larger proposed APE (45KI1481); however, it is 0.3-mile from the permit area and previously determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and therefore, will not be affected by the Project. There are four archaeological sites within 1 mile of the permit area, all of which are historic in age. No precontact archaeological resources have been identified within 1 mile of the permit area. Table 1. Previously recorded archaeological resources within 1.0 mile of the proposed APE. Site Number Site Name Site Type NRHP Eligibility (SHPO) Recorded By Proximity to Permit Area 45KI719a n/a Historic residential structure Determined Not Eligible Luttrell (2005) Bartoy (2013 0.7 mile SW 45KI1481 n/a Historic roads Determined Not Eligibleb Colón (2020) 0.3 mile SW 45KI1542 n/a Historic agriculture/structure Determined Not Eligible Huber (2020a) 0.7 mile W 45KI1543 n/a Historic debris scatter Determined Not Eligible Huber (2020b) 0.6 mile SW 45KI1583 n/a Historic isolate Unevaluated (recommended not eligible) Adams (2021) 0.3 mile SE a Site 45KI719 was removed by Washington Department of Transportation during right-of-way construction and no longer exists (Bartoy 2013). b Site 45KI1481 was determined not eligible by USACE during their Section 106 consultation with SHPO regarding the Woodbridge Corporate Park Building A and Building B Projects (NWS-2017-1077; Lundquist 2020). The entirety of the permit area was previously surveyed for archaeological resources by Tetra Tech in 2017 (Stipe 2017). This 2017 survey supported the Greenline Business Park Project, which has since been renamed and modified as the Woodbridge Business Park Project and has not yet been constructed. Figure 3 shows the Tetra Tech survey area, which encompassed approximately 120 acres, in relation to the current permit area. Tetra Tech performed pedestrian survey using 15-meter spacing across their study area. A total of 52 shovel probes were excavated in areas with potential to contain subsurface archaeological materials; areas where prior construction, land clearing, and development occurred were avoided (Stipe 2017:8-9). No archaeological resources were observed during the survey. Stipe (2017) concluded that their study area had been previously logged and recently re- planted and that potential to encounter archaeological resources within the 120-acre study area was low. No further work was recommended for the project. A literature review of potential archaeological and historic built environment resources and accompanying field visit was performed by Cardno in 2018 for the Greenline Business Park Project, which has since been renamed and modified as the Woodbridge Business Park Project and has not yet been constructed (Costa et al. 2018). Cardno concluded that there was low potential for encountering buried cultural resources and recommended that an intensive archaeological survey was not warranted. However, Cardno did recommend that a monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan be prepared for the project and that spot 4 monitoring be performed during construction-related ground disturbing activities (Costa et al. 2018). Cardno also performed an assessment of the Weyerhaeuser International Corporate Headquarters campus in 2020 to support the Woodbridge Corporate Park Building A and Building B Projects (Sadlier et al. 2020), which are located in a different area of the campus than the Woodbridge Business Park Project. The assessment concluded that the campus qualified as a National Register Historic District, which included the WTC and its associated building, parking lots, circulation driveways, and landscaping as contributing resources to the historic district (Sadlier et al. 2020). In October 2020, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with USACE’s determination that the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District was eligible for listing in the NRHP (DAHP 2020; USACE 2020). Substantial archival research was performed as part of Cardno’s 2020 assessment of the historic district. In particular, Sadlier reviewed photographs from the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library at the Forest History Society in Durham, North Carolina (Sadlier et al. 2020). These photographs show significant ground disturbance during construction of the WTC and its associated parking lots, circulation driveways, and landscaping (see photographs 1-9). Recommendations for Archaeological Resources HDR concludes that the permit area has low potential to contain buried archaeological resources. This conclusion is based on the DAHP’s predictive model, the previous archival and literature reviews, the prior survey that encompassed the entirety of the current permit area, and the significant amount of ground disturbance that occurred during construction of the WTC and its associated features. No additional archaeological investigations are recommended for the Project. HDR recommends that an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) be developed for the project. Archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities is not recommended due to the previous significant disturbance of the area and lack of potential for buried archaeological resources. The results presented herein are based on the defined permit area and HDR’s current understanding of proposed activities. If the permit area or proposed activities are modified to include other areas within the proposed APE, additional archaeological review may be required. Likewise, if any currently unknown historic or precontact cultural materials are observed during project-related ground disturbance, construction should stop within a 15- meter (50-foot) buffer and coordination with the USACE, DAHP, and any affected Indian tribes would be necessary as provided in the IDP. Historic Built Environment Resources Summary ICF performed an assessment of project effects on the NRHP-eligible historic built environment resources within the proposed APE (Tavel and Lentz 2022). Their recommendations are provided under separate cover (see Tavel and Lentz 2022). A brief overview of their assessment is presented below. however, the ICF assessment itself provides the comprehensive discussion of this topic and controls in case of any inconsistencies. 5 Properties within the proposed APE previously determined to be NRHP-eligible include the following: • One historic district: o The Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District • Four individually eligible properties: o Weyerhaeuser Company Corporate Headquarters Building o Project House 1 o Project House 2 o King County Fire District 22 Fire Station ICF recommended that the proposed Project activities would not affect the Weyerhaeuser Company Corporate Headquarters Building, Project House 1, Project House 2, or King County Fire District 22 Fire Station. However, the demolition and alteration of some contributing components to the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District and the introduction of new elements within the viewshed of some contributing components of the district would result in physical and visual effects that would diminish the integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the historic district. Therefore, the Project would adversely affect the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarter Historic District. Project Effects Recommendations No further archaeological investigations are recommended for the Project due to the previous significant disturbance of the permit area and lack of potential for buried archaeological resources. However, HDR recommends that an IDP be developed and implemented during Project construction. Based on ICF’s architectural history study and HDR’s archaeological resources review, HDR recommends a finding of “Adverse Effects on historic properties” for this undertaking. Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6, consultation with USACE, DAHP, and Section 106 consulting parties is recommended to determine ways to minimize and/or mitigate the adverse effects. 6 References Bartoy, K.M. 2013 Site 45KI00719 Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form Update. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Colón, Justin 2020 Site 45KI1481 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Costa, Daniel B., Michelle Sadlier, and Jennifer M. Ferris 2018 Cultural Resources Archival Study, Greenline Business Park Project, Federal Way, Washington. March 16. Cardno, Seattle, WA. Prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC, Los Angeles, California. Dailey, T. n.d. Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound: Village Descriptions Puyallup-Tacoma. Electronic document, http://www.coastsalishmap.org/Village_Descriptions_Puyallup- Tacoma.htm#13. Huber, Edgar 2020a Site 45KI1542 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 2020b Site 45KI1543 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Lundquist, Lance 2020 Letter to Allyson Brooks re: NWS-2017-1077 Woodbridge Corporate Park Building A & B Adverse Effect. On file, USACE, Seattle. Luttrell, C. 2005 Site 45KI719 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Sadlier, Michelle, Becky Strickler, and Jennifer Ferris 2020a Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus, Federal Way, Washington. July 29. Cardno, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC, Los Angeles, California. On file, Federal Way BP, LLC, Los Angeles. Stipe, Frank 2017 Greenline Business Park Property Cultural Resource Survey. Tetra Tech, Bothell. Prepared for Talasaea Resource & Environmental Planning, Woodinville. On file, Federal Way BP, LLC, Los Angeles. Suttles, W., and B. Lane 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Tavel, January, and Corey Lentz 2022 Federal Way Woodbridge Business Park Project: Historic Resources Effects Assessment. Federal Way, WA. September. ICF, Seattle, WA. Prepared for Federal Way BP, LLC, Los Angeles, CA. 7 Waterman, T.T., V. Hilbert, J. Miller, and Z. Zahir 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. 8 Figures 9 Figure 1. Permit area and proposed APE shown on USGS topographic quadrangle. 10 Figure 2. Overview of proposed Project design from Tavel and Lentz 2022. 11 Figure 3. Previous Tetra Tech archaeological survey area and results (from Stipe 2017) plotted with permit area. 12 Historic Photographs 13 Photograph 1. 1976 photograph of WTC construction site, looking east. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) Photograph 2. 1976 photograph of WTC construction site, looking north. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) 14 Photograph 3. 1976 photograph of WTC construction site, looking south. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) Photograph 4. 1976 photograph of WTC construction site, looking at south elevation of building. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) 15 Photograph 5. 1976 photograph of WTC construction site. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) Photograph 6. 1977 photograph of WTC south elevation. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) 16 Photograph 7. 1977 photograph of WTC, looking northeast. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) Photograph 8. 1978 photograph of WTC, looking north from south parking lot. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) 17 Photograph 9. Undated photograph of WTC, looking west. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)