Document Redmond_doc_bb20bb2103

Redmond’s Cultural Resources Management Plan Final Draft Prepared for the City of Redmond Prepared by DOWL February 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP i January 2018 Table of Contents Tbd List of Tables Tbd List of Figures Tbd ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP ii January 2018 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AD Anno Domino AMP Archaeological Monitoring Plan AP Analytic Period BP Before Present CIP Capital Investment Program CIS Capital Investment Strategy COA Certificate of Appropriateness COR City Of Redmond CORL City of Redmond Landmark CPP Countywide Planning Policies CR Cultural Resources CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Authority GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HPI Historic Property Inventory IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan King County Historic Preservation Program KCL King County Landmark KCLC King County Landmarks Commission Multicounty Planning Policies MOA Memorandum of Agreement NEPA Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places PREP Review Entitlement Process RCW Revised Code of Washington RHPO Redmond Historic Preservation Officer RMC Municipal Code RZC Redmond Zoning Code ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP iii January 2018 SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Plan Summit Cultural Resources Protection Summit TCP Traditional Cultural Property/Place USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WAC Washington Administrative Code WCC Washington Conservation Corps WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data WPA Works Progress Administration WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP iv January 2018 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 1 January 2018 1. Introduction The Redmond area has been home to people for thousands of years. Located in the central Puget Sound region of the state of Washington (Figure 1‐2), the City of Redmond (COR) lies on the shores of Lake Sammamish, in proximity to Lake Washington, and accessible to the forests of the Cascade foothills. Multiple glaciations, occurring between 1.8 million years ago and 10,000 years ago, carved the deep troughs that make up the topography characteristic to the region, the largest of which are now occupied by the waters of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish. A unique archaeological site located in the COR—the Bear Creek Site (45KI839)—was discovered during a 2008 cultural resources survey. During archaeological investigations conducted with the restoration of the Bear Creek stream the site yielded artifacts that date to over 12,000 years ago. Oral histories of Indian tribes, the descendants of those who occupied the Bear Creek Site, refer to living here since time immemorial. Generations of people have been drawn to this location, with its abundance of fresh water in the lakes, creeks, and rivers; plentiful fish and game; and rich soils in the area supporting fishing and hunting and later timber harvesting and agriculture. The area has been a place of occupation as well as a gathering place for trade and community for centuries. The early residents and visitors to Redmond have left their mark on the land and waterways in both tangible and intangible ways. This Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) was developed by the COR as a tool for its staff, community members, and development applicants. The development of the CRMP was initiated to meet requirements of mitigation described in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Regarding Treatment of Adverse Effects to the Bear Creek Site, Redmond, King County, Washington and its addendum dated September 29, 2014. The Bear Creek Site is located near downtown Redmond. Artifacts found at this site confirm North American settlement of the Puget Sound lowlands prior to 12,000 years ago. This unique site is among the earliest found on the Pacific Coast of North America. Examination of the site allowed modeling of land use patterns in the region and has contributed to our understanding of the peopling of the Americas. Data recovery at the site provided an unprecedented picture of how people lived near Bear Creek at the end of the Ice Age and what their environment was like. The Bear Creek Site, along with other known archaeological sites dating to later periods, confirms the importance of the Redmond area and the need to manage and protect known and undiscovered resources. In working with the local tribes, their enduring connections to the area became apparent Figure 1‐1 Bear Creek ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 2 January 2018 as did the need for a more collaborative approach to planning for Redmond’s future. Application of thoughtful planning informed by best management practices and sound science is essential to complying with laws and regulations and developing strong partnerships with the agencies and affected Indian tribes. Although the MOA provided the impetus to develop the CRMP, the plan will be the latest of many tools that demonstrate the COR’s commitment to protecting and promoting cultural resources. Upon adoption by the City Council, the CRMP will guide the City in managing and protecting cultural resources within Redmond. General management practices, standards, and procedures for protecting and promoting cultural resources are included here. This document and its associated tools also establish and clarify procedures and protocols for obtaining permits and other approvals for private, city, county, and state activities within the COR boundaries. 1.1 Cultural Resources: An Overview Cultural resources are defined and regulated by the United States Secretary of the Interior and are the physical evidence or place of human activity. A cultural resource is a site, structure, landscape, object, or natural feature of significance to a group of people traditionally associated with it. These resources provide the community a tangible connection to its long‐standing history and heritage. Cultural resources include archaeological sites and artifacts, historic buildings and structures, and cultural landscapes. Cultural resources also include properties or places of religious and cultural significance (Traditional Cultural Properties and Places) such as the location for seasonal berry gathering or a place of ceremony. These cultural resources, often a place, are significant for associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community. Cultural resources are protected because of their significance, their ability to inform and educate the community and scientists, and due to the irreplacable nature of these material resources. Figure 1‐2: Snoqualmie Falls is culturally significant to the Snoqualmie Tribe ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 3 January 2018 Figure 1‐3: City of Redmond Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 4 January 2018 2. Regulatory Context Federal, state, county, and local laws and regulations direct governmental‐bodies from the federal and state level to the local level to manage the cultural resources within the respective jurisdiction. The COR works closely with agencies, affected Indian tribes, and members of the community to comply with these laws and regulations and provide good stewardship for the resources under its protection. Table 2‐1 provides a summary of the regulations and Appendix F describes the existing regulatory framework in detail. Each regulation should be referred to directly for clarity and to take into account subsequent amendments. Table 2‐1: Summary of Cultural Resources Regulatory Framework Regulation Description National Historic Preservation Act Established protections for archaeological and historic resources and created the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Requires federal agencies and projects with federal nexus to consider impacts of undertakings to resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. National Environmental Policy Act Requires federal agencies to evaluate impacts to all cultural resources and those prehistoric and historical resources that are eligible for or listed in the NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) before a project is approved. Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) Describes measures to study and protect archaeological resources. Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) Provides measures protecting Native American graves and penalties for disturbing these sites. WAC Title 25 Establishes the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, its functions, and procedures to comply with the federal preservation program; authorizes the office to issue archaeological excavation and removal permits; and established the Washington Heritage Register of Historic Places. RCW 27.34.200 Declares the public policy to designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate structures, sites, buildings, and objects which reflect outstanding elements of the state’s archaeological, historic, architectural, or cultural heritage. Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Rules (WAC 173‐26‐ 221) Requires all Shoreline Master Programs to incorporate provisions to protect historic, archaeological, and cultural features and qualities of shorelines. State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21c) Requires counties and cities to develop an integrated project review process that combines both procedural and substantive environmental review to help identify possible environmental impacts that could result from governmental decisions. Governor’s Executive Order 05‐05 Requires all state agencies with capital improvement projects and projects with state nexus to integrate DAHP, Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and affected Indian tribes into their capital project planning process. Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies Established planning goals and a system of planning for cities and counties which had experienced rapid growth. RCW36.70A.070 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 5 January 2018 directs counties to adopt Comprehensive Plans. As a part of the GMA, King County adopted and the cities endorsed Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).Development Pattern 41 identifies King County’s policy to preserve significant historic, archaeological, cultural, artistic, and environmental features. King County Historic Preservation Ordinance (20.62.15) Established the King County Landmark program and protections for sites, buildings, districts, structures and objects which reflect significant elements of the county’s state’s and national heritage Redmond Zoning Code (21.30) Historic and Architectural Resources Provides direction on which elements of the Redmond Zoning Code are applicable to archaeological sites, designated historic landmarks, and properties that are eligible for historic landmark designation. Redmond Comprehensive Plan Provides a statement of the community’s vision for the future and includes policies that support protection of archaeological and cultural resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 6 January 2018 3. Cultural Resources in Redmond 3.1 Setting and Environment The environment and people make marks upon the land. The following describes the history of environmental impacts on Redmond and Sammamish River Valley that ultimately supported the area being populated. The geological features, fauna, and vegetation in place during the past recorded history are primary in indicating the probability of a site to include cultural resources in the current day. Geology and Climate Redmond is situated in the Sammamish River Valley at the eastern boundary of the Puget Lowland physiographic province. The Puget Lowland region is a wide low-lying area between the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic Mountains to the west. The region extends from the San Juan Islands in the north to past the southern end of the Puget Sound. The gently rolling hills of the Puget Lowland are the remnants of moraines and broad riverine floodplains and deltas (Franklin and Dryness 1988). The Puget Sound lowlands are dominated by water. Rivers and lakes surround the glacier‐carved Puget Sound with its many bays and small islands as well as the larger Salish Sea which extends from the north end of the Strait of Georgia to the south end of the Puget Sound, west to the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and east to include the western drainage of the Cascade range. Holocene fluvial activity and Pleistocene glacial events shaped the Sammamish River Valley. The most recent glacial event, The Vashon State of the Fraser Glaciation, scoured out the area now occupied by the Sammamish River and Lake Sammamish approximately 17,500 years ago. The subglacial erosional processes formed a large trough. As the glaciers retreated, gravel, sand silt, and clay were deposited into the trough forming a layer known as Vashon till. The retreating glaciers released meltwaters, draining into the lowland and depositing outwash. Glacial lakes were formed when ice sheets blocked drainages. Large flood events from continued glacial melt and the sudden release of the glacial lake waters contributed to high‐energy scouring of some previous deposits, shaping and reshaping drainage patterns (Kopperl et al 2010). Seasonal heavy rainfall, erosional slide activity, and frequent flooding continually shape the drainage patterns in the foothills and floodplains of the River Valley. In the twentieth century, the straightening and ditching of the Sammamish River as well as draining of wetlands altered the drainage patterns of the area (Kerwin 2001). The Redmond area is characterized by a maritime climate, with historically cool, dry summers and wet, mild winters. After the Fraser Glaciation, the region has experienced cycles of warming/drying followed by cooling and increased moisture. After the last glacial advance, a period of rapid warming and lower precipitation levels occurred until approximately 7,000 years before present Figure 3‐1 Cultural Resources surveys may be required in areas with a moderate or high probability of containing cultural resources ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 7 January 2018 [BP]) temperatures began cooling. This neoglacial cooling period lasted until approximately 2,000 BP. The little Ice Age was the last major fluctuation. This period from approximately 500 to 100 years BP resulted in a climate of increased precipitation and cooler temperatures (Ames and Maschner 1999). Fauna The diversity of species found in the Sammamish River Valley has been influenced by settlement and hunting activities. Historically, the region would have supported waterfowl and birds, as well as large and small mammals. Although some species are no longer present, the area continues to support mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), various avian species, salmonids, and suckers. Salmon species including Fall Chinook coho kisutch), sockeye nerka), kokanee nerka), steelhead mykiss), cutthroat trout clarkia), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are likely the only salmon species that were historically present in the Sammamish subwatershed (Kerwin 2001). Other species such as white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), northern pikeminnow oregonensis), suckers (Catostomidae), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), sculpins (Cottoidea), sticklebacks (Gasterosteidae), and lamprey (Petromyzontidae) were likely present as well. The western pearl shell mussel (Margaritifera falcata) is one of only three species of native freshwater mussels in western Washington and is known to occur in Bear Creek, which drains to Lake Sammamish (King County 2005). It is likely that other native species of freshwater mussels and clams were historically present in the Sammamish River Corridor. Vegetation The Puget Lowland is currently covered with stands of coniferous forest that make up the Tsuga (western hemlock) vegetation zone. Douglas fir is the dominant species followed by western hemlock and western cedar. The dense understory of the remaining old growth forest consists of shrubs and herbaceous species including salal, Oregon grape, ocean spray, sword fern, blackberry, red elderberry, and huckleberry (Franklin and Dryness 1988). Red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, and other riparian plants dominate the floodplains. Red alder and bigleaf maple are the predominant species found along rivers and streams. River valleys support wetlands with willow, cranberries, alder, cattail, reeds, wapto, skunk cabbage, and nettles (Crawford 1981). 3.2 Archaeology What follows is a brief culture chronology documenting the classification and archaeological evidence of prehistoric human occupation in western Washington. Several cultural chronologies have been developed to describe the evolution and distribution of cultural materials in the archaeological record. The chronology adopted here uses Analytic Periods (AP) developed for the King County Native American Archaeological Resources Sensitivity Model as described by Kopperl et al. (2016). The five APs are derived from a combination of geological, paleobotanical, and archaeological data. In addition, this section also describes major traditions, defined in Peregrine and Ember (2001) as “groups of populations sharing similar subsistence practices, technology, and forms of sociopolitical organization…” (xi). These traditions are primarily identifiable by their tools ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 8 January 2018 and other evidence visible in the archaeological record. While the time scales represented in each system are similar, there are some notable differences. Table 3‐1 shows how the APs developed by Kopperl et al. (2016) correlate to the relevant major traditions used by Peregrine and Ember (2001). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 9 January 2018 Table 3‐1: Correlation between Analytic Periods and Tool Traditions Years BP Analytic Period Paleo‐Indian Early Northwest Coast Middle Northwest Coast Late Northwest Coast 14000 Period 1: Mobile Foragers ‐ Colonization Early 12200‐10800 13500 13000 12500 12000 11500 Period 2: Mobile Foragers – Localized Adaptation 11000 10500 Late 11000‐6000 10000 9500 9000 9500‐5500 8500 8000 7500 Period 3: Foragers with Decreasing Mobility 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 5500‐1500 4500 Period 4: Semisedentary Foragers/ Collectors 4000 3500 3000 Central Sub‐ Region 3500‐1400 2500 2000 Period 5: Semisedentary Collectors 1500 1000 1500‐200 500 250 Sources: Kopperl et al. 2016, Peregrine and Ember 2001 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 10 January 2018 Period 1: Mobile Foragers ‐ Colonization Period (14,000 BP–12,000 BP) Beginning roughly 17,000 BP, climatic shifts resulted in a warmer and drier environment than that seen previously. By 15,000 years BP, glacial remnants from the last ice age began to recede and the ice encasing the Pacific Northwest began to free travel routes into the area. The receding ice exposed the Cascade Range, foothills, and glacial drift plains. Newly deglaciated areas were characterized by gravelly outwash plains and impacted by fluctuating sea levels. Within a few hundred years, the raw soils of the Puget lowlands began to support Lodgepole pine, and then Sitka spruce and western hemlock. At higher elevations, extensive spruce‐pine parkland dominated until 12,000 BP. This period corresponds to the earliest evidence of human occupation in the area. The first peoples to colonize western Washington were highly mobile and few in number. Although mobility early in this AP was likely driven by pursuit of larger game animals, towards the end of this period mobility was more seasonally‐driven. Expected site types from this AP include small residential base camps and some game acquisition sites. To date most sites associated with AP1 and Early Paleoindian habitation are characterized by isolated artifacts (stone tools) and artifact scatters (stone tool chipping debris/manufacture sites). Early Paleoindian bifaces in Washington were of the Clovis regional subtradition and consisted of large fluted projectile points used to target now extinct fauna such as … of Puget Sound (Carlson 1990; Gustafson et al. 1979; Meltzer and Dunnell 1987; Osborne et al 1956). Period 2: Mobile Foragers – Localized Adaptation (12,000 BP–8,000 BP) Between roughly 13,000 BP and 7,000 BP, continued warming and decreased precipitation contributed to summer droughts and colder winters than those typical today. Nevertheless, this period (particularly between 12,000 and 8,000 BP) maintained a somewhat stable climate. The warm, dry conditions encouraged the establishment of forests even at upper elevations of the Cascades. In the lowlands, forests of Sitka spruce and western hemlock were invaded by Douglas fir, red alder, and bracken fern. From 10,000 BP to roughly 6,000 BP, western Washington saw the warmest and driest climate of the Holocene, conditions which contributed to a fire‐prone environment. Frequent summer dry periods and fires resulted in the periodic creation of open grasslands surrounded by oak and Douglas fir. Peoples living during AP2 responded by developing adaptive land use strategies suited to their local environments. Generalized subsistence strategies targeted terrestrial and marine/riverine resources and seasonal rounds were well established. Expected site types from AP2 are similar to those described for AP1, although they are expected to be more numerous due to increased population. These include small residential base camps, field hunting camps, resource acquisition sites, and quarry sites. Figure 3‐2: Interpretive materials at the Bear Creek Site ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 11 January 2018 Period 3: Foragers with Decreasing Mobility (8,000 BP–5,000 BP) The terminal end of the last major glaciation was a period of rapid environmental change during which the climate shifted drastically from warm and dry to cool and moist. By/During Roughly 7,000 BP, the climate began its shift from warm and dry to cool and moist and temperature ranges began to approximate those observed today. Vegetation likewise changed dramatically over this period. The warming conditions preceding this shift had encouraged the expansion of subalpine parklands into alpine zones on the Olympic Peninsula and colonization of the upper elevations of the Cascades by mixed conifer forests. The resources exploited during this period likewise shifted. From roughly 8,000 BP to 5,000 BP, there is evidence of increased interest in marine resources, likely due to the extinction of North American megafauna such as Site types typical of AP3 include established base camps, seasonal camps, and various resource acquisition sites. Tool traditions corresponding to this AP include both Late Paleoindian (11,000 BP to 6,000 BP) and Early Northwest Coast (9,500 BP to 5,500 BP). Late Paleoindian assemblages typically feature stemmed lanceolate projectile points and bifaces manufactured using locally available materials. This period also saw the introduction of microblade technology, especially in the Pacific Northwest (Ames and Maschner 1999). This toolkit is most often associated with highly mobile hunter‐ gatherer groups. Extant coastal sites associated with Late Paleoindian and earlier traditions are few as sea‐level rise continuing up until roughly 5,000 BP inundated coastal sites. The Early Northwest Coast tool tradition (9,500 BP to 5,500 BP) is marked by the disappearance of microblade technology and the increased use of chipped and ground‐stone tools and bone and antler tools. The variety of forms and styles suggest diversification of subsistence strategies with an increased use of marine resources. This period is also differentiated from prior culture groups by the appearance of human burials in cemeteries. Period 4: Semisedentary Foragers/ Collectors (5,000 BP to 2,500 BP) After 6,000 BP and continuing to the present, modern vegetative communities began to advance, and by 5,000 BP, a maritime climate had been established. As of roughly 5,000 BP, red cedar and western‐hemlock forests were advancing into the Puget Lowlands. From 5,000 BP to the present, there were several brief periods of fluctuation in terms of precipitation and temperature. One of these climatic fluctuations occurred towards the end of AP4, when western Washington experienced neoglacial cooling lasting roughly 300 years (from to Technological advances during this period supported larger populations which led to increasingly complex sociopolitical relations within and between groups, including the establishment of circumscribed territories (Kopperl et al. 2016, Neusius and Gross 2007). This is evidenced by the appearance of plank houses during this period, which suggests that the increased focus on salmon as a resource also led to the development of long‐term settlements for larger groups of people. Site types associated with AP4 include base camps; resource acquisition sites for marine, terrestrial and plant gathering; quarry sites; and possibly village sites. Technologies at this time were characterized by further diversity of tool forms and styles, and the appearance of specialized tools associated with salmon resources. The Middle Northwest Coast tradition (5,500 BP to 1,500 BP) corresponds favorably with AP4 and demonstrates increased specialization geared toward ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 12 January 2018 exploitation of marine resources including implements for deep‐sea fishing, wooden fish weirs, stone net sinkers, and long‐term food storage. Period 5: Semisedentary Collectors (2,500 BP to 200 BP) Although the maritime climate had been established in western Washington as of roughly 5,000 BP, several climatic fluctuations occurred during AP5, including persistent drought conditions from 2,400 BP to 1,100 BP, a warming period from 1,100 BP to 700 BP known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, and yet another period of cooling during the Little Ice Age (500 BP to 100 BP). This period saw further development of the social and political structures present in the Early and Middle Pacific periods. Up until the Little Ice Age (which began roughly 1,350 AD), the warming climate became increasingly drier. Continued population growth resulted in extreme social stratification, intergroup warfare, and slavery. The material culture of this period is characterized by an overall decline (although not disappearance) in the manufacture and use of chipped‐stone tools and the advent of heavy wood‐working tools which were necessary for the production of elaborate art pieces and architecture (Neusius and Gross 2007). Site types typical of AP5 include winter villages, base camps, field camps, resource acquisition sites similar to those noted in AP4, and quarries. Archaeological evidence also suggests an increased focus on funerary ritual and burial ceremony during the period (Ames and Maschner 1999). Beginning roughly 2,500 years BP, AP5 overlaps the terminus of the Middle Northwest Coast tool tradition and beginning of the Late Northwest Coast tradition (1,500 BP to 1,775 Anno Domino The Late Northwest Coast tradition continues to the protohistoric period (this is occasionally defined as European contact but is also marked by the introduction of smallpox, which does not necessitate direct contact). This period is characterized by specialized social patterns and adaptations to sudden environmental and social change wrought by natural disasters and European contact (both indirect and direct). Table 3‐2 summarizes diagnostic site types/artifact types and key archaeological sites associated with each AP. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 13 January 2018 Table 3‐2: Diagnostic Tools and Key Sites Representative of Analytic Periods Analytic Period Dates Features Important Sites in Region Local significance Period 1: Mobile Foragers ‐ Colonization 14,000 to 12,000 BP Large, fluted projectile points. Bifaces and unifacial tools such as scrapers, knives, gravers, and burins. Luckey Clovis Site, Manis Mastodon Site, Ayer Pond Bison Site Period 2: Mobile Foragers – Localized Adaptation 12,000 to 8,000 BP Lanceolate projectile points, cores, processing sites, notable non‐stone tools (such as wood implements) Ross Lake, Slab Camp, Bear Creek Site, Manis Mastodon Site, Cedar River Outlet Channel Period 3: Foragers with Decreasing Mobility 8,000 to 5,000 BP Large chipped‐stone chopping implements and lanceolate projectile points Manette Site, Marymoor Site, Ross Lake Period 4: Semisedentary Foragers/ Collectors 5,000 to 2,500 BP Chipped stone, ground stone, and ground organic (shell, bone, antler) tools common. Shell midden sites common and artifacts forms varied. Marymoor Site, Dupont Southwest Site, West point Site Complex, Ross Lake, Sequim Period 5: Semisedentary Collectors 2,500 to 200 BP Ground‐stone and carved implements made from naturally‐occurring materials (antler, bone, stone, etc.) Chipped stone primarily as expedient technology, but more common in southern and central subregions. Muckleshoot Amphitheater Site, Marymoor Site, Old Man House, Duwamish No. 1 Site Sources: Kopperl et al. 2016, Peregrine and Ember 2001 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 14 January 2018 3.3 Ethnography (add call out for Xobal) The southern portion of the Salish Sea (Puget Sound) has historically been occupied by independent but related groups including the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, Shohamish, Smulkamish, Skokomish, Skopamish, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Stkamish and Suquamish (Haberlin and Gunther 1930; Kopperl et al. 2016; Suttles and Lane 1990). Collectively, these groups are identified by their shared language, Salish, or Lushootseed, a term meaning “salt water language,” (Thrush 2016). The area is also of interest to the Yakama, who followed well‐known and established trails and trade routes through the Cascade Mountains. These routes provided considerable contact and trade between the Puget Sound region tribes and the Yakama (Suttles and Lane 1990:488). Lushootseed speaking peoples made use of the great diversity of resources available in the lands and waters that surround the Salish Sea. Typical seasonal rounds consisted of residence at permanent fall and winter villages and removal to smaller spring‐summer camps. Resources were gathered, hunted, stored, and traded. The people who resided in the region were experienced environmental managers who actively shaped their landscape to optimize production of target resources and thus benefit and sustain their lifestyles. These efforts included controlled burns to create optimal habitat for game species and growth of berries, leveling of shellfish beds, and terracing of salt marshes to encourage the growth of clover and Pacific Silverweed (Kopperl et al. 2016:64‐65). They also constructed fish weirs, or stukwalukw to efficiently catch salmon during fish runs, while ensuring that enough fish were allowed to pass upstream to reproduce (Thrush 2016). Permanent settlements were located on or near the coast, along river corridors or upland on the slopes of the Cascade Mountains (Haberlin and Gunther 1930). Villages were positioned to take advantage of staple resources and were populated primarily in the fall and winter months. These large settlements consisted of multi‐family longhouses lined with sleeping platforms. Villages could include one to ten of these large houses and additional ceremonial spaces, depending on the group (Kopperl et al. 2016: 59). Groups such as the Snoqualmie, whose villages were located primarily in upland areas, targeted medium and large game animals while those living on or near the coast, such as the Duwamish, were primarily reliant on marine resources. Groups living alongside inland lakes and river corridors (Lake Sammamish) employed more diverse subsistence strategies, frequently targeting both aquatic (primarily but not exclusively riverine) and game resources (Ballard 1929:38). A driving force of cultural continuity for these tribes is Huchoosedah which is exemplified through cultural knowledge (both practical and spiritual) and knowledge of self. Concepts of nature, culture and self are learned through oral tradition. Origin stories are foundational to the understanding of how the world came to be, and form the background against which stories informing the worldview of the Lushootseed speaking peoples are set. Lushootseed origin stories take place in the distant past, at a time when the world was still shifting. Many origin stories revolve around a figure called the Transformer, through whose life and agency order was brought to the world. It was through the telling of these stories that young people learned lessons guiding behavior, familial connections, and relationships (both human and animal), all fundamental to Huchoosedah. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 15 January 2018 Small autonomous towns were linked to larger villages and tribes through trade and marriage, and relationships maintained through social gatherings such as the Sgwigwi, or “inviting” during which towns and villages would gather and wealthy members displayed their status through distribution of wealth. These gatherings, known more commonly as potlaches, also provided the opportunity to celebrate marriages and births, extend social networks and engage in competitive sports. Ceremony and ritual play an important part of the history of the Lushootseed speaking peoples. It was through the Winter Dance that individuals could commune and release their spirit powers; the Power Board ceremony was used to cleanse houses and people who lived in them; and it was through the Spirit Canoe ceremony that doctors would join together to retrieve the souls of the ill from the Land of the Dead. During the spring and summer larger communities would split into smaller seasonal groups to target game, fish, and plants (Suttles and Lane 1990). Early observers noted that these camps were frequently located centrally to several different types of resources (Kopperl et al 2016). Food processing could consist of fresh preparation, partial curing (for transport), or full preservation (for winter storage or trade). Spring and summer housing could take a variety of shapes including tent/tipi, square lean‐to, or square with gable‐like roof. Tent/tipi and square lean‐to structures were typically constructed using frame poles covered with mats. Gable‐frame structures were more often held together with narrow cedar branches and covered on the roof and three sides with mats (Haberlin and Gunther 1930). During the proto‐contact period, disease epidemics coursed through the Native American population that resided in the southern area of the Salish Sea, necessitating shifts in some of the above‐described seasonal rounds (Kopperl et al. 2016). There were upwards of 60 historically‐ recorded village sites associated with the ethno‐historic period but many of these (and broader traditional territories) were ceded through treaties signed in the 1850s (Table 3‐3). These treaties resulted in the establishment of several reservations, although some who were not explicitly included in these treaties continued to live in traditional village locations up until the early twentieth century. The reservations were situated in areas where Native Americans would not “interfere with existing [non‐Indian] claims or with the progress of settlements,” which left many traditional fishing and husting sites outside of reservation lands. To accommodate for this, the treaties reserved the rights of Native Americans to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations” (Getches 1971:265). The treaties were not universally accepted, and in some cases benefits and/or payments promised to signatory tribes were left owing. The ensuing conflict saw violence on both sides, and eventually some villages were burned and their residents forced onto reservations. The specialized ecological knowledge employed to maximize both resource use and management/preservation was an integral part of Huchoosedah. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 16 January 2018 Table 3‐3: 1850s Treaties and Associated Tribes Treaty Date Tribes Included Treaty of Medicine Creek December 26, 1854 Nisqually, Puyallup, Squaxin Treaty of Point Elliott January 22, 1855 Duwamish, Suquamish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Lummi, Swinomish Point No Point Treaty, 1855 January 26, 1855 S’Klallum, Chimakum, Skokomish Yakama Treaty of 1855 June 9, 1855 Yakama Source: Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Washington State. In time, new life was given to old ceremonies as they were integrated into other spiritual traditions, such as that represented by the Indian Shaker Church. Identity and sense of community were retained through participation in cultural and sporting activities (such as canoe races and Indian baseball leagues). Many tribal members also participated in the growing Puget Sound economy, performing jobs in farming, logging, fishing, and other industries. The mid‐ and later‐20th century saw a resurgence of conflicts between tribes and the Washington State government. Declining fish runs starting as early as the 1940s culminated in the implementation of restrictions on fishing during the 1950s and 1960s. For those who used to fish in Bear Creek and Lake Sammamish, restrictions on fishing caused concern over reprisals from local game wardens. Some, targeting kokanee and even king salmon, would hide gaffing hooks and nets in the trees and shrubs near ideal fishing spots in Bear Creek and small streams flowing from Lake Sammamish (Elsie Irma Zackuse Erickson, quoted in ILTF:4; Mary Anne Hinzman, quoted in ILTF:&). Proponents of the fishing regulations argued that fish stocks were being depleted by fishing methods used by the tribes (such as the use of fish nets and weirs), and that, in the interests of conservation, Native American off‐reservation fishing rights should be restricted just as commercial and sport‐fishing were. Puget Sound tribes argued that declining fish populations were a result of commercial overfishing and poor ecological management. The agricultural industry polluted the rivers, while the logging industry, installation of culverts, and diversion of streams choked off healthy runs (Hinzman, quoted in ILTF nd:7; Maine Law Review 1971:269). Curtailment of Native American fishing off‐reservation was in violation of treaty rights guaranteed them more than a century prior. More importantly, fishing was an integral piece of cultural identity. The fish wars, as they came be called, were characterized by acts of civil disobedience and occasionally violent clashes between State actors, commercial fishermen, and tribes. Through organization and litigation which gained nationwide notoriety, the Tribes eventually secured a favorable ruling entitling treaty tribes to 50% of harvestable salmon and steelhead in the state in 1974. The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 (Getches 1970; Price 2014). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 17 January 2018 The fish wars represented one of many legal battles the tribes have waged over the past half century. Tribes have also challenged laws curtailing hunting rights, and fought for federal recognition and sovereign autonomy. Today, tribal affiliations are reflective of the expansive treaties signed during the 1850s and subsequent recognition by the Federal Government. The Puyallup and associated band of Shohamish are members of the federally recognized Puyallup Tribe of Indians, while the Suquamish and Snoqualmie are also federally recognized Indian tribes. Other groups are coalesced into larger tribes. The Skopamish, Smulkamish and Stkamish are members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Skykomish and Snohomish are primarily members of the Tulalip Tribes. To date, the Duwamish have not been federally recognized and members are enrolled in other tribes (Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Washington N.D.; Duwamish Tribe 3.4 Historic Context Settlement of the Sammamish Valley by Euro‐Americans began in the early 1870s. The plentiful water and fertile lands of the valley drew settlers and investors eager to take advantage of federal programs including the Homestead Act of 1862 intended to transfer land in the western United States to private ownership. The Homestead Act of 1862 allowed people, through certain criteria, to claim a 160 acre parcel of land by filing their intention and paying a filing fee of $10 and a $2 commission to the land agent at the nearest Land Office. A homesteader who could demonstrate they lived on the land, built a home, made improvements, and farmed the property was able to claim the property after five years. Upon payment of a $6 fee, the homesteader received the patent for the land (NPS As the community grew in number so did the services and infrastructure. Communication and commerce grew with the establishment of new roads including County Road 33 and County Road 54 (Road History Packet R Langdon Road, Road History Packet RDNO 54). Steamboats also connected small communities such as Adelaide, Donnelly, and Monohan on Lake Sammamish and the Sammamish River. (Bagley 1929, Krafft and Melton 2005, Seattle Times 1998). Additional information regarding Redmond’s settlement and growth from the 1870’s to present is found in the 1998 and 2005 Historic Resources Survey and Inventory, available through the City’s Planning Department. 3.5 Known Cultural Resources in the Redmond Area There have been numerous cultural resources investigations in the Redmond area. Many of these studies have related to construction and development in the area and have identified additional cultural resources throughout the City. Resources identified in these studies have been reported to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for inclusion in the Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) and to the affected Indian tribes. Some of the resources in WISAARD have been formally evaluated and determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Washington State Heritage Register (WHR), King County Landmarks (KCL), City of Redmond Landmarks (CORL), or Redmond Heritage Resource Register. Other resources have been located and noted in WISAARD but either fail to meet the threshold for listing or have not been sufficiently evaluated to establish their eligibility. As ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 18 January 2018 discussed in Appendix F, SEPA, Executive Order 0505, and Section 106 of the NHPA require review of potential project impacts to resources eligible or determined eligible for the NRHP, WHR, and local registers.1 The following discussion presents the types of cultural resources currently identified in Redmond. Data on the specific resources is available directly through WISAARD and summarized in the Analytic tool. Prehistoric Period Archaeological Sites Prehistoric sites are found throughout Redmond and adjacent to its city limits. The sites relate to the use of the area for trade, habitation, and subsistence activities. Site types include pre‐contact lithic material and pre‐contact camps. Many sites, though not all, are clustered near creeks, rivers, and other waterbodies. The most significant site in the City’s boundary area is the Bear Creek Site, located near downtown Redmond. The artifacts found at this site confirm North American settlement of the Puget Sound lowlands prior to 12,000 years ago. These sites, along with other known sites in Redmond, confirm the importance of the area and the need to manage and protect its known and undiscovered resources (Kopperl 2010). Located less than a mile south of downtown Redmond, on the shores of Lake Sammamish is the Marymoor Site. More than 1,000 artifacts have been recovered from this King County site including projectile points from an occupation site dating to as early as 1,750 BP (Lockwood 2016). Traditional Cultural Properties/ Places Although no TCPs in the Redmond area are currently identified in WISAARD, these sites are part of the heritage and knowledge maintained by the Indian tribes. The COR will continue to seek input on a project by project basis from the affected Indian tribes regarding areas of cultural significance and regarding appropriate procedures and protocols for their protection. Historic Period Archaeological sites Historic period archaeological resources in the COR relate to exploration, transportation, settlement, logging, and other activities in the present city boundaries. Many of the settlers who arrived in the Redmond area were drawn to the same locations that had attracted Native Americans, particularly the shorelines of the rivers and streams that provided water, food, and 1 The data in WISAARD should be considered a starting point for determining the approach to cultural resources management and reviewing projects as some records may not be complete and not all areas of the City have been surveyed. Figure 3‐3: Artifact Found at a Prehistoric Period Archaeological Site near Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 19 January 2018 often served as transportation routes. Because the locations were universally attractive, prehistoric sites have been found below historic period and modern settlements. Common site types from the historic period in Redmond include railroads, roads, farmsteads, and scatters of glass, cans, and other man‐made materials. Isolated artifacts and sites have been found by individuals on private residential property and through the course of formal cultural resources investigations for large‐scale projects. These resources are predominately located in areas that have been previously disturbed, particularly in places where there has been extended use but only limited ground disturbance. For example, many areas of the city that were paved during the middle of the twentieth century only received a light coat of asphalt, preserving cultural materials below the surfaces. Current development patterns often require deeper excavations, revealing intact buried materials. Historic Buildings and Structures There are many buildings and structures within the city boundaries that are significant for their association with the development of the area. Of these, 16 are designated as City of Redmond Landmarks (CORLs). The 16 designated CORLs include civic, educational, residential, and commercial structures in the downtown, several farmhouses and farm complexes, and the Redmond Pioneer Cemetery. Other historic‐period resources found in the city include roads, bridges, and railroad segments; however, there are no examples currently designated or listed in the city limits. The most recent inventory of historic structures was completed in 2005 but did not focus on resources constructed after 1940 (Krafft and Melton 2005). This information is incorporated into the statewide inventory maintained by DAHP as required under 36 CFR Part 61. The inventory is useful to private developers and city staff in identifying resources that may be eligible for the NRHP, WHR, etc. when planning projects. Figure 3‐5: Justice White House Figure 3‐4: Historic Period Archaeological Artifact ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 20 January 2018 Cultural Landscapes Cultural landscapes are settings humans have created in the natural world. They reflect the ties between people and the land. Examples include farmsteads, ranches, formal gardens, funerary, military sites, commerce sites, and pilgrimage routes to village squares. Cultural landscapes have elements of the landscape integrated with built features and structures. For example, important features on a farmstead would include the pastures and the fence posts as well as barns or residential structures. There are no designated cultural landscapes in Redmond but the some of the remaining large farms, such as the Conrad Olson Farmstead, a designated City of Redmond landmark, could be considered cultural landscapes. Regionally designated examples include the Cedar River Watershed Cultural Landscape and the Central Whidbey Island Historic District. Figure 3‐6: The integration of the built features with the pastures and open space are important elements of the Conrad Olson Farmstead. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 21 January 2018 4. Procedures and Policies The procedures and policy direction included in this chapter are arranged into processes within COR activities during which the CRMP will be employed. Discussion of COR‐funded maintenance and CIP projects is followed by procedures for privately‐funded development; consultation and coordination with affected Indian tribes and DAHP; construction monitoring; and provisions for review and update of the CRMP and Analytic Tool. Protocols and checklists for use by COR staff are included in Appendix E. Many individuals, groups, and divisions have a responsibility for using the CRMP when reviewing and planning projects to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Table 5‐1 provides a summary of COR groups and individuals and their management responsibilities related to the CRMP. Additional details on these responsibilities are provided in the procedures described in the following sections and the Protocols in Appendix E. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 22 January 2018 Table 4‐1: COR Roles and Relationships to Cultural Resources Management Person/Group Typical Project Role Relationship to Cultural Resources Management Long Range Planning/RHPO Update and implement plans and codes in the COR related to cultural resources Review private and COR development for impacts to cultural resources Policies and codes provide guidance to staff and developers regarding the City’s implementation of federal, state, and local laws for managing and protecting cultural resources. Private development, capital projects, and the City’s maintenance and operations are conducted in the context of the policies, codes, and laws. Development Review Planners Review private and COR development applications Condition private and COR development regarding cultural resources requirements Private development considers and plans for the possible presence of cultural resources early in the development process. The information obtained during early assessments supports completion of permitting including SEPA and shoreline management. City Inspectors Inspect work or staging areas of construction projects to ensure work meets permit conditions Inspectors, as needed, ensure the ongoing protection of cultural resources through their engagement with the project applicant, project manager, and contractors working in the field during project development. CIP Functional Leads (Public Works Water, Sewer, Wastewater; and Utilities; Transportation Planning and Engineering; Parks and Recreation; Natural Resources) Propose and manage transportation, parks, utility and other civic infrastructure projects to 30% design The Functional Lead considers and plans for the possible presence of cultural resources early in a CIP’s development workflow. In doing early due diligence and communicating with agencies and affected Indian tribes, the lead analyzes many levels of risk for the project and calculates appropriate project costs. The lead also establishes the path through which cultural resources, as needed, will be managed during project development. Construction Division Capital Project Managers Hire and oversee design and construction consultants and contractors for CIP projects The project manager plays a key role, as needed, in managing and responding to cultural resources during project development. Their role varies significantly during the project’s workflow, ranging from confirming the qualifications of cultural resources specialists to implementing and permitting in accordance with an inadvertent discovery plan. Natural Resource Division Leads Manage the maintenance of restoration sites Some City‐owned properties include known cultural resources. The Natural Resources division lead carefully plans and implements management plans specific to each location and resource and ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 23 January 2018 maintains communication with agencies and affected Indian tribes as part of the management. Public Works Maintenance and Construction Maintain roads and associated infrastructure owned by the COR Maintenance and operations staff consider cultural resources as part of their daily work in the field with infrastructure management. Often, staff work in already disturbed areas though also, on occasion, in undisturbed soil and therefore operate in similar manner to a Functional Lead and project manager for capital improvements. Staff also maintain a high degree of training that helps them respond to inadvertent discoveries. Parks and Recreation Maintenance Leads Maintain parks and associated infrastructure owned by the COR Maintenance and operations staff consider cultural resources as part of their daily work in the field with parks and facility management. Based on the location, staff operate in similar manner to a Functional Lead and project manager for capital improvements. Staff also maintain a high degree of training that helps them respond to inadvertent discoveries. Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) Crews Maintain restoration sites Crew work is planned in advance through the Natural Resources division and therefore, takes into account appropriate planning for careful management of cultural resources. Similar to maintenance and operations staff, WCC crews work under the guidance of leads that have a high degree of training that helps them respond to inadvertent discoveries. Planning Group Records Coordinator Respond to Public Information Requests Information regarding the location of archaeological resources is protected by federal and state law. Records regarding cultural resources are securely maintained and as directed, some information is exempt from disclosure. Staff who manage records receive frequent training regarding appropriate document and information management. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 24 January 2018 4.1 Analytic Tool COR staff will use the Analytic Tool when planning for and reviewing proposed development and capital projects within Redmond to avoid impacts to cultural resources. The Analytic Tool integrates archaeological, historic, and ethnographic data and documentation with aerial photography, maps, and archaeological sensitivity models produced by King County. The Analytic Tool will help the COR staff to complete a preliminary assessment of the probability of encountering cultural resources which could be adversely affected by development and construction activities. Because the Analytic Tool will not include information on all areas of significance to affected Indian tribes, it will be the basis for an initial though not final assessment of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the associated cultural resource management approach. Analytical Tool Use Use of the Analytic Tool will be restricted to COR staff. Community members, project applicants, developers, and residents will not have access to the Analytic Tool, but will receive information derived from the tool from within COR offices and from members of the COR Development Services team and will have access to static map copies showing high/moderate/low probability areas for planning purposes. The maps will not include information on confidential archaeological resources or areas of significance to affected Indian tribes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 25 January 2018 4.2 Procedure for City of Redmond Funded Projects The COR provides funding for a variety of projects that may impact cultural resources. Redmond’s many buildings, parks, utilities, and streets require on‐going maintenance. Larger investments in civic infrastructure are accomplished through the CIP Program. Figure 5‐1 shows the groups responsible for project planning, implementation, and construction of COR funded projects. Figure 4‐1: Groups Involved in CRMP Planning and Implementation Maintenance and Operation Projects Various groups within the COR maintain the buildings, parks, utilities, streets and other land owned by the City. The Parks and Recreation and the Public Works departments have their own maintenance divisions that perform routine maintenance projects. Larger and more complex maintenance projects may be managed by the Public Works Construction Division. The Parks and Recreation Maintenance & Operations division is responsible for landscaping work as well as maintenance of infrastructure and structures in City parks. The Public Works Maintenance and Operations Division is responsible for ongoing maintenance needs of all public streets, traffic, water, stormwater, and wastewater utilities. Maintenance falls into several categories: work on City owned buildings and structures; work performed on built features such as stormwater facilities; work in previously disturbed soils; and work on unimproved land or native soils. For both the Parks and Public Works maintenance and operations divisions, Redmond staff coordinate with the RHPO to review projects and when necessary, follow the process to obtain a COR Executive Public Works Natural Resources Utilities including Water, Sewer, Wastewater Transportation Operations Construction Maintenance & Operations Parks and Recreation Planning & Administration Maintenance & Operations Planning Long Range Planning & RHPO Counter and Current Development Planners Development Services ‐ Building Development Services ‐ Engineering Transportation Planning and Engineering Police & Fire Finance ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 26 January 2018 COA for work on or near the specified built cultural resources associated with designated features of the CORL. Other maintenance activities are performed on assets delivered through the Capital Construction and Development Services process. The majority of these duties are performed on built elements such as utility pipes, constructed stormwater ponds, and sidewalk repairs. There are other tasks that Public Works maintenance staff perform that interface more directly with soils or the natural environment. Maintenance activities that are performed on underground utilities, such as water service line and stormwater pipe repairs, are performed in soils that have been previously excavated, backfilled, and compacted during the original construction projects. Of the activities performed by the City’s maintenance divisions, it is estimated that a limited number add infrastructure or disturb native soils. These include clearing of park lands that are categorized as unimproved, installing new utility infrastructure, or dredging streams to remove silts deposited from the stormwater system. Additional vegetation and other elements at stream restoration sites are managed by the Public Works Natural Resources division who contracts with the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC). When work is performed in proximity to known cultural resources (archaeological), a management plan takes precedence and the work might be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. In addition, some maintenance and operations activities are exempt from cultural resources review, as approved by the DAHP and affected Indian tribes. The responsibilities and procedures for the group leads and RHPO for maintenance of non CIP projects are described in more detail in the protocols for Maintenance and Operations (Appendix E.x) and Agency and Tribal Coordination (Appendix E.x). Some COR sites and landmarks for which maintenance and operations groups are responsible may be vulnerable to impacts from climate change including: flooding from glacier melt; damage from more severe weather patterns including rain and windstorms; changes in heat and humidity which can cause deterioration; and risks from wildfires. Preservation activities for known sites and structures should incorporate stewardship practices to identify vulnerabilities and lessen risks as possible. Emergency response protocols outlined in Appendix E.x will take those vulnerabilities into account. The NPS, as the lead federal agency for the care and management of cultural resources, has issued a Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy document (Rockman et al 2016). Maintenance and operations leads may also wish to consult this document for further guidance on preparedness and response to climate‐change related risks and impacts to COR sites and landmarks. Unplanned or emergency response The COR maintenance and operations groups may be required to implement unplanned or emergency responses in the event of fire, flooding, significant property damage from vandalism, or as a result of other unplanned, unexpected events. Emergency response may Figure 4‐1 Unanticipated discovery of historic‐ period, buried resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 27 January 2018 require that some response activities to protect human life or property occur prior to initiating this procedure. Appendix E.x (Maintenance and Operations) provides the protocols for response to emergencies and vandalism. Capital Investment Program Planning The Capital Investment Program (CIP) is a six‐year plan for infrastructure investments to implement Redmond’s vision and priorities. It includes project investments intended to preserve and maintain infrastructure, keep pace with growth, and enhance community character. Most CIP projects are initiated by a functional group such as the Transportation Planning & Engineering Division, Utilities, or Parks Planning. The Functional Lead from the respective division(s) often obtains necessary permits from the COR and from any state or federal agencies. This permitting activity might also occur later during construction phases by the Construction Division Capital Project Manager. The Construction Division manages construction work, typically through a contract with an outside construction company. The City of Redmond manages capital projects in the context of cultural resources to increase predictability regarding the presence of resources and for efficient use of public funds in the development of capital projects. In doing so, inadvertent impacts to cultural resources can be avoided or reduced, additional time for mitigating unintended impacts once construction has started avoided or limited, and compliance with federal, state, and local laws ensured2. Procedures for cultural resources management as part of capital improvements are summarized below and workflows for each procedure provided in Appendix E. Relevant protocols and procedures for CIP projects may include but are not limited to Determining Cultural Resources Approach (Appending E.x); Agency and Tribal Coordination (Appending E.x); Budgeting for Cultural Resources Services (Appending E.x); and Consultant Selection, Scope of Work and Survey Report Review (Appending E.x). Project Planning and Budgeting Prior to being added to the CIP list a project must undergo risk assessment and cost estimating. Cultural resources are considered during the budgeting/risk assessment because projects requiring cultural resources survey or monitoring will need to plan for the additional funding. Project funds are not yet assigned at this point in project lifecycle and it is, therefore, not possible to conduct cultural resources surveys or evaluations. However, consideration for the sensitivity of the location of the planned work will ensure adequate funds are available to conduct detailed studies if they are necessary. The Functional Lead works closely with the RHPO to evaluate the probability of encountering cultural resources. The RHPO is responsible for coordinating with DAHP and the affected Indian tribes to identify the sensitivity of the proposed project area and recommending the initial cultural resources management approach for the project to the Functional Lead. 2 Applicable laws and regulations are described in Appendix F. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 28 January 2018 CIS and CIP List Review The 6‐year CIP list is revisited biennially. A project may be removed or added based upon changing priorities, and project elements may be revised. To account for changes, cultural resources are also reconsidered and any revisions incorporated into the cultural resources management approach. The Mayor completes a recommendation to the City Council in the fall of the budget year. At this time, the budget becomes available for review and consultation with the DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. Capital Investment Program Project Planning and Design (Up to 30%) Procedures Following project approval and the adoption of the budget by the City Council, projects are initiated with a kick‐off meeting and development of the Project Charter document. The Project Charter identifies the goals and risks of the project including the probability of encountering cultural resources. Since a project’s first consideration as part of functional planning, conditions may have changed in the project area. For example, the project footprint may have been refined and/or new cultural resources may have been identified. A reassessment of the probability of cultural resources enhances predictability and clarity at this time in project lifecycle. While the RHPO is responsible for coordinating with the affected Indian tribes and DAHP and providing recommendations for the cultural resources management approach, formal government to government consultation required under NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA is the responsibility of the respective federal agency or their designee (i.e. WSDOT for project receiving FHWA funds). Consultation with DAHP and affected Indian tribes helps determine the appropriate response when a project is located in an areas with a moderate‐ to highly probable occurrence of cultural resources. Responses include the hiring of qualified cultural resources consultants and guidelines for reviewing, commenting on, and distributing the results of a cultural resources survey for further review. Cultural resources surveys, initiated early in the project design process, allow ample time for developing project alternatives and/or planning for appropriate mitigation. Capital Investment Program Final Design and Construction Phase The final design and construction phase of projects is managed by the Construction Engineering Division in the Department of Public Works. With the exception of small or routine maintenance projects3, construction is typically performed by a third‐party 3 Exemption provided in Appendix G Figure 4‐2 Curation entails cleaning and preparing artificats for display or storage. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 29 January 2018 contractor. Requirements regarding cultural resources monitoring and/or mitigation plans are integrated into the contractor bidding process. At project completion, a cultural resources debriefing checklist summarizes the consultation process, any avoidance or minimization measures employed, summary of construction monitoring, and any inadvertent discoveries encountered during the project. If mitigation was required for the project such as development of interpretive materials, the results of these activities are incorporated into the debriefing checklist by the RHPO and their progress reported periodically to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. The responsibilities and procedures for the leads and RHPO for completion of CIP projects are described in more detail in the protocol for CIP Completion (Appendix E.x) and Agency and Tribal Coordination (Appendix E.x). 4.3 Private Development Permitting and Review Private development projects require permits from the COR Planning Department. Private development projects requiring ground disturbing work may require a cultural resources survey prior to receiving permits to comply with State and Federal laws, and the Redmond Zoning Code. In addition, land‐use permits, construction permits and demolition applications are handled by Planners in the Development Services Group. There are multiple permit types and paths to submit applications. Certain permits will be exempt from cultural resources review, as approved by the DAHP and affected Indian tribes. The list of the exempt permit types is included in Appendix G to the CRMP and includes activities where the permit is obtained over the counter at the time of application and no additional staff review occurs. The Redmond Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) reviews permit applications for non‐exempt activities in areas of moderate to high probability for cultural resources to propose a preliminary recommendation whether a cultural resources survey or other approach to cultural resources management is likely to be required. DAHP and affected Indian tribes review the preliminary recommendation and issue recommended requirements for the project’s cultural resources approach. Approaches may include using an archaeological monitor during geotechnical boring or construction. If a survey or other measures are required, the RHPO also reviews the cultural resources survey report, routes to affected Indian tribes and DAHP for review, coordinates with the DAHP regarding their letter of concurrence or additional recommendations to the report, and informs the planner of any permit conditions related to cultural resources management such as archaeological monitoring during construction. The protocols for Private Development Cultural Resources Survey Requirements and Report Review, located in Appendix E.x, provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. 4.4 Tribal, Community, and Agency Coordination and Consultation COR recognizes that successful management and protection of cultural resources requires continued consultation and collaboration with affected Indian tribes, agencies, and community members. Mechanisms for continued communication and consultation include regular meetings ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 30 January 2018 with affected Indian tribes, agencies, and community groups to discuss sensitive areas and issues of concern; periodic review of the CRMP (see CRMP Review and Revision); and active consultation for projects funded or permitted by the COR. COR Funded Projects The timing and the parties involved will vary based on the type of project or undertaking. Some activities, such as planned routine maintenance activities, will only require limited communication. Other projects such as multi‐year, multi‐phase construction projects will entail frequent communication and coordination with DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. For CIP Projects with extended planning periods, agencies, affected Indian tribes, and consulting parties will be involved during the planning phase and at key points in the project lifecycle. For a detailed discussion of consultation and coordination tasks see the Protocol for Agency and Tribal Coordination (Appendix E.x). Private Development COR will provide notice to affected Indian tribes and DAHP when applications for private development are received for areas identified as having moderate to high probability for archaeological resources or potentially eligible historic structures (properties with resources over 40 years old with minimal alterations to property and historic materials). Where necessary, the RHPO will distribute information on private development or demolition projects to the affected Indian tribes and the DAHP, and depending on feedback, may require a cultural resources survey prior to issuance of a permit. Results of any cultural resources surveys will be distributed to affected Indian tribes and DAHP by the RHPO. Tribal and DAHP feedback will also be considered when implementing monitoring and or avoidance measures into permit conditions. Additional information on the consultation process and responsibilities can be found in the Protocol for Private Development Cultural Resources Survey Requirements and Report Review (Appendix E.x). 4.5 Requests for Information from the Public Periodically the COR receives requests for information from private developers or members of the public relating to cultural resources on particular parcels or the results of previous cultural resources survey reports. Under RCW 42.56.300, information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure. Per the City’s data sharing agreement, the RHPO will notify the DAHP of the public records request within five days of its receipt when the public records request involves the shared data or products produced from the data. With guidance from the City’s attorney and City clerk, the COR may distribute redacted copies of reports to members of the public or direct property owners to DAHP to obtain details of archaeological and cultural resources on their Figure 4‐3 Bear Creek Interpretive Trail ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond CRMP 31 January 2018 property. The procedure for responding to requests for information is described in the Protocol for Secure Document Management (Appendix E.x). 4.6 Cultural Resources Monitoring Cultural resources monitoring will be employed for COR funded projects or privately developed projects permitted by the COR when recommended in a cultural resources survey report or required by the RHPO in consultation with the affected Indian Tribes and the DAHP. Monitoring will most frequently be required during ground disturbing work for construction projects. Based on coordination with the affected Indian tribes and/or the DAHP, monitoring may also be required by the RHPO for projects by City maintenance and operation crews where the scope of ground disturbing work does not warrant a cultural survey but the work will occur in an area of moderate to high probability for or an area of known cultural resources. In some cases, with approval from the affected Indian tribes, it may be possible to substitute the use of an archaeological monitor with a cultural monitor from one of the tribes. Monitoring protocols will depend on the scope, scale and nature of the activity or project. For example, ground disturbing activities such as road paving with limited widening within the established right‐of‐way in a heavily developed and well‐documented area may only require monitoring in specific project areas, while new construction in previously undisturbed areas with high potential for archaeological, cultural or historic resources may require full‐time monitoring of all ground disturbing activities. The protocol for Construction Monitoring provides additional information on required monitoring and templates for monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plans (Appendix E.x). Figure 4‐4 Archaeological monitoring may be required for geotechnical boring or ground disturbing work in moderate or high probability areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. References Ames, Kenneth and Herbert D.G. Maschner 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast; Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, Lt., London. Ballard, Arthur C. 1929. Mythology of Southern Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 3(2):31‐150. Brodie, Dianna and Kay Reinartz. 2008. National Register of Historic Places Nomination form for the Redmond City Park. On file with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. Cadastral Map of 1871 1871. Cadastral Map of 1871, Available at ln=10010000. Accessed October 12, 2016. Carlson, Roy L. 1990. Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp.60‐69.: Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. City of Redmond N.D. Redmond’s Statistics. Accessed October 18, 2016. Crawford, Victoria 1981. Wetland Plants of King County and the Puget Sound Lowlands. King County Planning Division, Seattle, Washington. Duwamish Tribe N.D. Duwamish Fight for Federal Tribal Recognition. www.duwamishtribe.org. Accessed 11/21/16. Emerson, Stephen. A 1998 Inventory of 165 Historic Properties within the City of Redmond, King County, Washington. Submitted to City of Redmond Department of Planning and Community Development. On file with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin, Jerry F. and C.t. Dryness 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Gemperle, Richard. 1972a. National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the James W. Clise Residence. On file with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. 1972b. National Register of Historic Places Nomination for Yellowstone Road. On file with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia. Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Washington State. N.D. “Treaties,” from http://www.goia.wa.gov/treaties/treaties.htm. Accessed August 2016. Gustafson, Carl Richard Daugherty, and Delbert W. Gilbow 1979. The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:157‐164. Haeberlin, H.K. and E. Gunther 1930. The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Hitzroth, Tom N.D. Research on Redmond History compiled from Pioneer Land Office filings, aerial photographs and other documents obtained from National Archives, Bureau of Land Management, private collections, and other sources. On file at Tom Hitzroth’s home in Kirkland, Washington. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar‐Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia. King County Library 1962‐1963. Redmond, A History. Compiled by students of Mr. Gene Redmond Junior High. King County 2012. King County Countywide Planning Policies 2012 with amendments ratified by October 31, 2015 http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/executive/performance‐strategy‐ budget/regional‐planning/CPPs/2012CPPs‐Amended103115.ashx?la=en. 2009. King County Historic and Scenic Corridors Project. Seattle, WA. http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/transportation/kcdot/roads/historyarchaeology/document s/HistoricCorridors/Report/ChapTwo.ashx. Accessed February 11, 2107. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2005. Results of a Pilot Freshwater Mussel Survey in King County. Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. 2002. Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan. Final Report. http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2002/kcr1270/00_Cover_Introduction.pdfAccessed June 09, 2017. Road History Packet Road No 54. King County Road Services Division Map Vault. Seattle, Washington. http://info.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/roads/mapandrecordscenter/mapvault/ Kopperl, Robert, Charles Hodges, Christian Miss, Johonna Shea, and Alecia Spooner 2016. Archaeology of King Country, Washington: A Context Statement for Native American Archaeological Resources. Prepared for the King County Historic Preservation Program. Seattle, Washington. Kopperl, Robert Christian J. Miss and Charles M. Hodges 2010. Results of Testing at the Bear Creek, Site 45‐KI‐839 Redmond, King County, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington. NWAA Report WA 09‐013. Krafft, Kate and Lisa Melton 2005. Historic Resources Survey & Inventory, Redmond Washington. Submitted to City of Redmond Planning and Community Development, Redmond, WA. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Kroll’s Atlas of King County 1912, 1930, 1946, 1958, 1971. Kroll Map Company, Inc. Seattle, Lockwood, Chris 2016. Marymoor Site. Site Update Form 45‐KI‐9. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Malowney, Georgeann 2002. Images of America. Redmond Washington. Arcadia Publishing. Chicago, Illinois. Meltzer, David J. and Robert C. Dunnell 1987. Fluted Points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:64‐67. MOHAI ---PAGE BREAK--- N.D. Hotel Redmond, ca. 1905. Museum of History & Industry Photograph Collection. http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/imlsmohai/id/5120/rec/2 9. Accessed October 12, 2016. National Park Service N.D. About the Homestead Act. Accessed October 11, 2016 1990. National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Accessed November 22, 2016 1998. Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce. Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. Available at Accessed November 22, 2016. Neusius, Sarah Ward and G. Timothy Gross 2007. Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Osborne, Douglas, Warren W. Caldwell, and Robert H. Crabtree 1956. The Problem of Northwest Coast‐Interior Relationships as Seen from Seattle. American Antiquity 22(2):117‐128. Peregrine, & Ember, M. (Eds.) 2001. of Prehistory Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Perrigo Plat 1909. Filed by Matilda and Warren Perrigo. Copy obtained from Tim Hitzroth. On file at researcher’s home in Kirkland, Washington Redmond Plat 1891. Filed by Luke and Kate McRedmond. Copy obtained from Tim Hitzroth. On file at researcher’s home in Kirkland, Washington Rockman, Marcy, Marissa Morgan, Sonya Zaija, George Hambrecht, and Alison Meadow. 2016. Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy. Washington, DC: Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science and Climate Change Response Program, National Park Service. Seattle Times ---PAGE BREAK--- 1956. Aerial view of Redmond, Washington, September 14, 1956. Available from Museum of History and Industry. http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/imlsmohai/id/5716/rec/2 Accessed September 14, 1956. 1993. Scott Williams Stephen Clutter. Microsoft Hatches Land Deal –Software Firm Has Option to Buy Old Chicken Farm. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930413&slug=1695678 Accessed. November 21, 2016 1998. Special edition “A Hidden Past – An Exploration of Eastside History”, Dec. 13, 1998. Sikes 1st Addition to Redmond Plat. 1897. Filed by W.E. Sikes and J.A. Sikes. Copy obtained from Tim Hitzroth. On file at researcher’s home in Kirkland, Washington Sikes 2nd Addition to the Town of Redmond Plat 1906. Filed by W.E. Sikes and J.A. Sikes. Copy obtained from Tim Hitzroth. On file at researcher’s home in Kirkland, Washington Suttles, Wayne. & Barbara Lane 1990. Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast. Pp485‐502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Way, Nancy 1989. Our Town. Redmond Marymoor Museum, Redmond, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1871. Cadastral Map of 1871, Available at ln=10010000. Accessed October 12, 2016. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Glossary of Terms Archaeological Monitor A person who observes construction activities or other ground disturbing work that has the potential to disturb archaeological materials. The person should have completed a formal training program in the identification of both prehistoric and historic cultural remains. Archaeological resources Resources that document and symbolize the social and cultural patterns of prehistoric and historic societies. Archaeological resources are generally, but not necessarily, buried below the surface. Examples include isolated artifacts, trash dumps, remnants of building foundations, and campsites. Archaeological site / site The place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains (National Register Bulletin 36, “Guidelines for Evaluation and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts” 1993, p.2). In Washington state, two or more artifacts are recorded as an archaeological site. Area of potential effects The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause change in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (from 36 CFR 800.16(d) Protection of Historic Properties). Archival resources Written and graphic resources, including maps, photographs, oral histories, and primary and secondary sources that document historic period societies. Artifact Any object made or modified by human activity. B.P. (Before Present) Used as a designation following radiocarbon dates to express the point from which radiocarbon years are measured. This measuring point is arbitrarily taken to be 1950. Biface A stone tool or implemented shaped on both surfaces. Cache A collection of tools, equipment or food stuff which has been deliberately stored for future use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Cairn A heap of stone places to serve as a marker. Cairns ordinarily mark the location of graves, stored valuables, important landmarks, or orientation points. C‐14 Carbon 14 radiocarbon dating, main absolute dating tool used by archaeologists. Consultation The process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the process. Cultural or Tribal Monitor A person with knowledge of local ethnohistory and areas of tribal significance used to conduct monitoring during construction or other ground disturbing activities. Cultural Resource This term has various meaning in publications, environmental documents, and agency guidelines. It generally refers to resources of architectural, historical, archaeological or cultural significance associated with past human activity. These resources may include archival resources, artifacts, buildings, structures, landscapes, archaeological sites, and Traditional Cultural Places/Properties. Culturally Modified Trees (Basket Trees or Peeled Cedars) Living trees from which bark has been stripped or planks split off from their side. Curation Professional storage of archaeological materials and associated materials including photographs, research, and documents. Data Recovery The systematic collection and documentation of archaeological information. Often used to refer to excavation, but also includes systematic surface collection, coring and auguring, and various forms of remote sensing. May be employed as a method of mitigation for impacts to archaeological sites Debitage Material produced during the process of producing stone tools. The material may include lithic flakes and blades and production rejects. Effect Alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in, or eligibility for, the NRHP (from 36 CFR 800.16(i), Protection of Historic Properties). Ethnography ---PAGE BREAK--- Anthropological studies of specific cultures. Ethnohistory The study of the development of a particular cultural group through time utilizing oral traditions and archaeological and linguistic data. Euro‐American European cultures or those primarily derived from European cultures. Features Non portable objects or relationships produced by human activity. Field Survey The physical search for and recording of cultural resources on or in the ground. Flakes Stone fragments (waste material) left over from the process (flintknapping) of manufacturing stone tools. Flakes can serve as tools or are easily modified into artifacts. Ground Disturbance Any activity that disturbs the soil. It can range from excavation with a bulldozer to tree removal. Historic Archaeology Archaeology of sites of the historic period. Historic Period Resources that date from the period when Euro‐Americans first visited or settled the area. Generally considered to include resources dating from the mid‐18th century to the present. Historic Property or Historic Resource Any precontact or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe that meet NRHP criteria (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Title III, section 301 (16 U.S.C. 470w(5)). Holocene The most recent life period ca 10,000 years ago to the present. In situ In its original place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Inventory One of the products of a field survey of cultural resources. The inventory includes an organized compilation of information on identified resources and an evaluation of their significance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Isolate (Isolated Finds) A small number of artifacts occurring by themselves. The definition and treatment of isolate varies by state law and managing agency. For example, in Washington a single artifact is an isolate, in Oregon 1‐9 artifacts are considered an isolated find. Lithics Stone artifacts. Midden A mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other material that indicates the site of a human settlement. Mitigation An action taken in response to an effect on a cultural resource. Mitigation may include a variety of actions agreed upon with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes. Minimization of alteration, creation of specialized photography or education programs, and data recovery are the methods most frequently employed. National Register/ NRHP Criteria The criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior for use in evaluating the eligibility of properties for the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Part 60). Paleoindian Prehistoric cultures characterized by fluted projectile points. Pedestrian Survey A systematic walkover and visual inspection of exposed surfaces. Professional Archaeologist An individual who meets the U.S. Department of Interior (1997) Preservation Professional Qualification Standards for Prehistoric Archaeologist or Historical Archaeologist. Projectile points Chipped stone artifacts used to tip arrows, dart points or spears. Shell Midden Midden deposits that contain high frequencies of shell‐fish remains. Shovel Test A method of archaeological survey. A shovel test consists of a hole measuring approximately 30 centimeters (12 inches) excavated to culturally sterile deposits. All materials removed from the shovel test are sieved using a screen. ---PAGE BREAK--- Significance An assessment of the relative importance of a particular cultural resource. Here significant sites are defined as those meeting the criteria for listing in the NRHP. Smithsonian Numbering System A national identification system used to assign permanent catalogue numbers to newly recorded archaeological sites. The system is composed of a state number, county abbreviation, and an individual site number. Stratigraphy The interpretation and ordering of geological cultural sediments. Survey Survey is the process used to identify and gather data on a community or area’s cultural resources. It may be limited to background research and presentation of existing data or include field survey, presentation of data from the field survey, development of inventories, and preparation of recommendations for NRHP eligibility, effects, and mitigation. Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) A NRHP‐eligible or listed district, site, building, structure or object whose significance is derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. For example, a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world (National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties). Traditional cultural properties may include gathering or fishing areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Data Sharing Agreement ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Consulting Agencies Agency Partners The COR interacts with numerous agencies in its management of cultural resources. The roles of the agencies will vary based upon the laws and regulations described in Section 2.1 and the type of project or undertaking. Coordination with agency partners is further discussed in the Agency and Tribal Coordination protocol (Appendix E.x). Federal Agencies Certain projects in the COR require a permit from and/or coordination with federal agencies. The most common include the FHWA and Federal Transit Authority (FTA) for projects involving road, rail, and other transportation infrastructure and the USACE for projects affecting waters of the United States including wetlands. COR may be asked to follow the procedures of these agencies for projects receiving grants and other federal funding. COR has the responsibility to provide these agencies with information on the effects of proposed actions on those cultural resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. COR may also be contacted by these agencies to serve as a consulting party for projects in the city limits proposed by other parties or directly by the agency. State Agencies The COR interacts with many state agencies regarding cultural resources. Many projects in Redmond receive grants from state agencies such as the Washington Department of Ecology. Additionally, WSDOT often serves as the contact for FHWA for projects receiving federal funds. COR interacts with the staff of these agencies and follows their procedures for implementing reviews under SEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. COR frequently coordinates and consults with DAHP on projects with the potential to impact cultural resources. DAHP works with agencies, tribes, private citizens, and developers to identify and develop protection strategies for cultural resources in Washington. DAHP administers the WHR and the NRHP program in Washington under the direction of the SHPO as required under 36 CFR Part 61 and RCW 27.34.210. DAHP has review authority(?) (cite authorizing code) for impacts to archaeological, historical, and other cultural resources under SEPA (WAC 197‐11‐340), Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800), and Executive Order 0505. DAHP responsibilities include maintaining records of known cultural resources; reviewing reports, nominations, and determinations of eligibility to the NRHP and WHR; and approving permits for investigations at or alterations to archaeological sites (RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53). DAHP works closely with the COR staff to determine the best approach and necessary investigations for compliance with Section 106, Executive 0505, and SEPA. ---PAGE BREAK--- COR staff also use DAHP’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). This is a repository of information on known cultural resources in Washington. WISAARD also contains records relating to surveys and other efforts to identify and protect archaeological and other cultural resources. The database has a publically accessible search tool for information on historic resources. Approved consultants and staff from agencies and local governments use a secure interface to search for and enter data on archaeological sites and other confidential resources; submit cultural resources inventory forms and reports to the DAHP; and to track the administrative record of compliance projects submitted to the DAHP. Data on cultural resources in Redmond in the WISAARD system is described in more detail in Section 3.5. King County Some projects require coordination with County officials and staff on issues ranging from road improvements to natural resource protection. provides training and educational support to the COR in addition to designation and protection services for historic properties and landmarks. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D GIS Analytic Tool Specification ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Protocols ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Protocol for Determining Cultural Resources Approach Contents Introduction: 50 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 50 Determining the Approach 50 Cultural Resources Services Approach 51 Contacts and Resources 52 Revision Record 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 50 Introduction: This protocol provides the procedures and workflows for City employees to make the initial determination of what cultural resources services need to be applied to projects in the City of Redmond. The Redmond Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) together with other staff from Planning, Public Works, Parks and other departments as applicable will then work collaboratively to establish an approach to cultural resources management for key milestones in the projects. The cultural resources approach will be implemented when following these procedures:  Capital Investment Program Budgeting  Capital Investment Program Survey Reports  Private Development Review  Maintenance and Operations Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Analytic Tool Geographic Information Systems layers to help identify probability of encountering cultural resources Determining the Approach The approach to cultural resources will be determined by the location of the project, proximity to known cultural resources, and the potential for impacts to those resources from project activities. COR staff will work collaboratively with the RHPO to review the project location, ground disturbing activities, and check the Analytic Tool. Staff will have access to general information on cultural resources sensitivity, but the RHPO will be responsible for checking the confidential layers of the Analytic Tool. Services may include a survey by qualified cultural resources professionals and/or monitoring by archaeologists during construction or geotechnical boring. The RHPO will check with the affected Indian tribes to confirm what services are required. The affected Indian tribes may request to send a tribal member to observe ground disturbing work (cultural monitoring). The Cultural Resources Services Approach Procedure flowchart illustrates the process and considerations for developing the approach. Based upon the results of the initial services additional cultural resources management activities may be required and the approach will be confirmed as project moves through the project lifecycle. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 51 Cultural Resources Services Approach Procedure Start Here *If no, no service required Project area is in a moderate or high probability area (per Analytic Tool)? RHPO checks with affected Indian tribes & DAHP Affected Indian tribe(s) and/or DAHP requests survey No CR survey required Geotechnical boring anticipated?* Archaeological monitoring required Area identified as high probability or highly sensitive to affected Indian tribe(s)?* Cultural monitor during construction Yes No Yes Yes For CIP projects go to Budgeting &Consultant Scope of Work Approval For Private Development go to Private Development Review No survey or monitoring required. Follow standard Inadvertent Discovery Plan during construction. Yes Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Protocol for Budgeting for Cultural Resources Services Capital Investment Programs Contents Introduction: 54 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 54 Project Budgeting 55 Budgeting Procedure Flowchart 56 Cultural Resources Services Cost Estimating 57 Cost Estimating Table (2017) 58 Project Budgeting Checklist 59 Contacts and Resources 62 Revision Record 62 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 54 Introduction: Functional Leads for City of Redmond capital projects will consider the needs for cultural resource management at an early stage in project planning using the budgeting/risk assessment tool. Cultural resources services required will vary based upon the project, locations, and probability of encountering cultural resources in the area. This protocol provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. Additional information can be found in the Cultural Resources Management Plan. Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Functional Plan Strategic plans developed by COR Departments (Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, Transportation, etc.) with a list of recommended capital projects. Analytic Tool Geographic Information Systems layers to help identify probability of encountering cultural resources Project Budgeting Checklist Optional checklist for use in developing the CR approach and budget ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 55 Project Budgeting When preparing projects for inclusion in their department’s Functional Plan, Functional Leads will work with the RHPO to develop an approach to cultural resources management for each project included in the plan. Some activities such as speed bumps and other traffic calming devices will be exempt from review (the list of exempt activities is included in the CRMP). In developing the approach, the Functional Lead and RHPO will consider both cultural resources services that should be included in the budgets for individual projects as well as required consultation with affected Indian tribes. The RHPO will use the Analytic Tool to assess the probability of encountering cultural resources and provide a recommended approach to the Functional Lead. Other considerations for the approach to cultural resources management will include:  Existing disturbance of the area  Extent including depth of proposed ground disturbance  Presence of and proximity to City of Redmond Landmarks  Preliminary recommendations of the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the affected Indian tribes Based on the recommended approach and anticipated cultural resources services, the Functional Lead will consult the cost table to establish the budgets for services and contingency for each project. These costs will be included in the functional cost estimate template (utilities, parks, transportation, etc.) for the project that is then included in a functional plan or other document. Services will vary based upon the project but may include a cultural resources survey report and/or geotechnical monitoring by a professional archaeologist. The cultural resources budgeting checklist is an optional resource to evaluate and document the approach to cultural resource management and associated budget. When the project is proposed for the initial staff draft of the CIP, the Functional Lead and the Capital Project Manager will work with the RHPO to develop an updated budget for cultural resources services. This secondary review will account for new information about the project scope, new information about the conditions in the project area, and new federal, state, or local regulations pertaining to cultural resources. In the event of changes to the project scope or elapsed time since previous review, in advance of and in preparation for construction, the Functional Lead and RHPO will confirm the cultural resources approach and budget. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 56 Budgeting Procedure Flowchart Start Here 1.1 Functional Lead consults the RHPO 1.2 RHPO and Functional Lead develop CR approach 1.3 Allocate funding for CR Services (including CR survey) 1.4 Allocate funds in the project contingency for 1.5 avoidance measures, monitoring and mitigation including training 1.6 Include service & contingency budget in functional cost estimate template 1.7 When preparing project for the CIP, review based on changed conditions or time Go to Consultant Selection, Scope of Work Approval ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 57 Cultural Resources Services Cost Estimating Start Here Project is in a moderate or high probability area? RHPO checks with affected Indian tribes and DAHP Budget for CR survey (Activities 1, 2, 3) Geotechnical boring anticipated? Budget for archaeological monitor (Activity 4) Area identified as high probability or highly sensitive to affected Indian tribe(s)? Budget for CR monitor during construction (Activity 5) and mitigation (Activity 7) Tribe(s) and/or DAHP requests survey No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Repeat at CIP and Council Adoption Go to Consultant Selection, Scope of Work Approval No budget for CR services required No ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 58 Cost Estimating Table (2017) Activity Number Activity Estimated Time to Complete Estimated Cost 1 Background research on small parcel 5 acres) by qualified professional (Phase 1 Survey)* 5 days + 30 day agency/tribe review $5,000 2 Pedestrian survey and limited shovel probes by qualified professionals of a small parcel acres) that results in no finds (Phase 2 Survey)*1 30 days+30 day agency/tribe review $25,000 3 Additional shovel probes to verify the boundaries and testing to evaluate NRHP eligibility of a small site (2 testing units) (Phase 3 Survey)* 30 days+30 day agency/tribe review $20,000 4 Use of monitor during geotechnical boring During ground disturbing activities $125 (per hour) 5 Use of monitor during construction During ground disturbing activities $125 (per hour) 6 Data recovery of site requiring < 20 excavation blocks (1 x 1m)** 6 months to 1 year $200,000 7 Mitigation – specialized photography, interpretive plans, etc.* 6 months to 1 year $30,000 *Includes report, required forms, and limited coordination with agencies and affected Indian tribes **Includes report, required forms, and limited coordination with agencies and affected Indian tribes, artifact preparation but not curation 1Add an additional 10% (of $25,000) for linear projects where access to site may not allow continuous survey and/or an additional 25% (of $25,000) per acre surveyed for larger parcels. Costs for Data Recovery and Mitigation should be included in the contingency for any project with a finding of “A potential to cause effects (high probability area with previous survey) or Insufficient information to reach a recommendation (high probability area without previous survey or inconclusive survey)” ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 Project Budgeting Checklist 1 Project Name Point of Contact Anticipated Construction Date Funding Source(s) such as COR, State, Federal List all that potentially apply Expected Regulatory Context (NEPA, SEPA, Redmond Code, etc. List all that potentially apply) 2 Location Address Acre(s) Comments: 3 Project Description (attach site photos) ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 4 Screening Review Results (Check all known or identified in review) Moderate or High Probability Area per analytical tool Areas of known significance to affected Indian tribes Recorded Archaeological Sites National, State or Local Register Sites Human Burials or Cemeteries Buildings/Structures/Roads/Built Features 45 years or older Comments 5 Recommendations No potential to cause effects (no resources present, previously surveyed) Low potential to cause effects (no resources present, low probability area) A potential to cause effects (high probability area with previous survey) Insufficient information to reach a recommendation (high probability area without previous survey or inconclusive survey) ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 6 Action Required (Check all that Apply) Cultural Resources Survey o Phase 1 (literature review) o Phase 2 (field survey with shovel probes) o Phase 3 (testing) Construction Monitoring Custom Treatment or Inadvertent Discovery Plan Tribal Monitoring Other (Training for contractors, architectural monitoring) 7 Service Cost Estimation Contingency Cost Estimation Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Signature Functional Lead Signature ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 Draft Protocol for Agency and Tribal Coordination Contents Introduction: 64 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 64 Distribution of Materials to Affected Indian tribes 66 Meetings with Affected Indian tribes 66 Capital Investment Program Project Planning Agency and Tribal Coordination 69 Capital Investment Program Project Planning Tribal Coordination Procedure 70 Tribal and Agency Coordination Project Initiation through Completion 71 Preliminary Coordination Procedure 72 Survey Report Review Coordination 73 Tribal Input Checklist 74 Tribal and Agency Coordination Checklist 78 Cultural Monitoring of Maintenance & Operations and Capital Project Construction Work 80 Maintenance and Operations/Capital Project Cultural Monitor Request Procedure 81 Contacts and Resources 82 Revision 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 Introduction: The City of Redmond (COR) recognizes that successful management and protection of cultural resources requires continued coordination and collaboration with affected Indian tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Mechanisms for continued communication and consultation include telephone calls and meetings with affected Indian tribes to discuss sensitive areas and issues of concern and active coordination for projects funded or approved for development by the COR. This protocol provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. Additional information can be found in the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Analytic Tool Geographic Information Systems layers to help identify probability of encountering cultural resources and known resources in Redmond Inadvertent Discovery Plan Plan documenting procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery of a potential cultural resource. Maintenance and Operation staff will follow inadvertent discovery procedures and if necessary implement the standard Redmond Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP). Capital Improvement Program projects may have a project specific IDP or use the standard plan Tribal Input Checklist Checklist providing an overview of the project and COR recommendations for further studies Tribal and Agency Coordination Checklist Internal checklist of activities and steps in the coordination/consultation process Activities Requiring Coordination and Consultation The COR will coordinate and consult with the affected Indian tribes and DAHP at a variety of intervals. The following table identifies the activities requiring consultation, parties involved, and typical timing. ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 Consultation Matrix Activity Triggers Consulting Parties Documentation Required Implementation Schedule Response Time Cultural Resources Management Protocols Annual Review Bear Creek MOA Signatories Proposed Changes Annually 30 Days COR Funded Projects Initial Funding Project in moderate to high probability area Affected Indian tribes and DAHP  List with locations, project name, and summary of proposed work  Tribal Consultation Checklist As needed 30 Days COR Funded Project Initiation Projects in moderate to high probability area Affected Indian tribes and DAHP  Project description, location, and timing, additional project work ask required  Tribal Coordination Checklist As needed 30 Days COR Funded Project Completion Projects in moderate to high probability area with monitoring and/or mitigation requirements Affected Indian tribes and DAHP Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist Project completion 30 Days COR Maintenance Non‐exempt, ground disturbing projects in moderate to high probability area Affected Indian tribes and DAHP Project description, location, and timing Annually 30 Days ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 Activity Triggers Consulting Parties Documentation Required Implementation Schedule Response Time COR Emergency Maintenance Unplanned project requiring ground disturbance within 30 days Affected Indian tribes and DAHP Notice from RHPO to facilitate use of a monitor As needed 24 Hours Private Development Permit * Permit Application Affected Indian tribes and DAHP  Description of work  Permit Application Review Checklist During PREP Process Prior to Pre Application Meeting 5 Days *Procedures are described in the Protocol for Private Development Review Distribution of Materials to Affected Indian tribes The RHPO will be responsible for distributing materials to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes related to projects funded or permitted by the City. The materials will include at minimum a project description, location map, address, and probability of containing cultural resources (per the Analytic Tool). The process and timeframe for distribution of materials are described in more detail in the CRMP and in the following protocols: Capital Investment Program Budgeting Capital Investment Program Survey Reports Capital Investment Program Project Completion City of Redmond Projects Construction Monitoring Private Development Review Maintenance and Operations A copy of the Tribal Input Checklist will be attached to the materials distributed to the affected Indian tribes. Meetings with Affected Indian tribes The RHPO will schedule periodic face‐to‐face meetings with the affected Indian tribes to discuss projects planned by the maintenance and operations groups and as part of the capital investment planning process. During these meetings the RHPO will provide an update on the schedule and changes to previously discussed projects. The meetings will also be an opportunity to discuss general ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 communications with the city and issues of concern. The frequency of the meetings will be determined through discussions with individual tribes. Maintenance and Operations Project Planning Agency and Tribal Coordination The maintenance and operations groups will, in discussion with RHPO, develop a list of routine maintenance activities that are regularly performed on City‐owned buildings, land, and utilities and from which cultural resources review and/or consultation are exempted. Following approval of the list, some projects and types of maintenance activities will be exempt from review by the RHPO, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes. The list of exempted maintenance activities will be reviewed and approved by affected Indian tribes and DAHP, and will be updated biennially (see Review and Revision schedule in the CRMP).Each department’s maintenance group will provide to the RHPO a list of known non‐exempt projects (the timing of the distribution of this list will be finalized based upon discussions with the departments to best align with their existing processes). The RHPO will submit this project list to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for their input as to the sensitivity of the area and their recommendations for survey and/or monitoring. ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 Maintenance and Operations Biennial Project Planning Tribal Coordination Procedure Start Here Maintenance and operations groups develops list of non‐ exempt activities RHPO reviews the list and provides input RHPO distributes list to agencies and affected Indian tribes Agencies and/or affected Indian tribes recommend survey Go to Consultant Selection and Survey Report Review Work Proceeds Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 Capital Investment Program Project Planning Agency and Tribal Coordination The RHPO and the Functional Lead (or other designated individual responsible for the early phases of project planning) will establish an approach to cultural resources when projects are in locations with moderate to high probability of encountering cultural resources. This approach will be revisited at key intervals (see COR Funded Project Cultural Resources Overview). During the early planning phases the RHPO will distribute materials to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes to confirm the approach to cultural resources management and plan for cultural resources studies. During the planning and community engagement phases of the project (if required), Functional Leads will seek input from the affected Indian tribes on potential impacts to cultural resources. The Functional Leads will coordinate with the RHPO to confirm the interest of the affect Indian tribes in participating in consultation at this phase. Tribal representatives will be invited to attend public meetings and workshops held as part of planning or community engagement phases of a project (when required). At the request of the affected Indian tribes, individual meetings will be arranged with the Chairperson and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and the appropriate COR representatives including the Mayor, Directors, etc. If requested, the meeting will be held at the office of the affected Indian tribe or other preferred location. ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 Capital Investment Program Project Planning Tribal Coordination Procedure Start Here When consultation with affected Indian tribes and agencies is indicated by funding source or program, the Functional Lead, with RHPO as needed, coordinates scoping, agency, public, and tribal meetings Functional Lead consults list of projects of interest (as identified by tribes) Tribes have indicated through previous coordination that they wish to participate in consultation or consultation process is required by funding source or program RHPO contacts affected Indian tribes to invite Chairperson & THPO and other representatives to meetings Functional Lead arranges meeting locations and schedule Functional Lead provides meeting notices and notes with assistance from RHPO Go to Project Budgeting Protocol Go to Project Budeting Protocol No Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 Tribal and Agency Coordination Project Initiation through Completion At project initiation, the project team will develop a charter and establish an approach to consultation and coordination with the affected Indian tribes. If the COR is the lead agency for the project, they will initiate consultation with the affected Indian tribes and DAHP. If the COR is not the lead agency they may opt to arrange meetings to supplement any meetings organized by federal or state agencies providing funding or permitting for the project that may have government to government consultation responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or other regulations. If the affected Indian tribes request meetings to discuss the project, the RHPO will work with the functional lead and the THPO or designated representative from the affected Indian tribes to arrange the meetings and the invitee list. If requested, the meeting will be held at the office of the affected Indian tribe or other preferred location. The Tribal and Agency Coordination Checklist provides a table of required activities and timeframes related to consultation and coordination. Additional steps in the coordination and consultation process are described under Preliminary Coordination Procedure, Survey Report Review Procedure, and Construction and Project Completion Procedure. ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Preliminary Coordination Procedure Start Here RHPO & Function Lead and/or project manager determine funding source and lead agency COR is lead agency RHPO calls DAHP and affected Indian tribes to review planned procesures RHPO sends formal (govt. to govt) letter DAHP and tribes RHPO makes followup call to affected Indian tribes Comments Received RHPO follows up on comments RHPO incorporates comments into survey requirement Go to Survey Report Review Coordination Procedure Meeting Requested RHPO coordinates meeting with functional lead and/or project manager, THPO, tribal chair, etc. No Comments or Meeting Requested RHPO will coordinate with lead agency to provide comments and review feedback from tribes received by the agency Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Survey Report Review Coordination Procedure Start Here RHPO distributes or authorizes distribution of CR survey report to DAHP and affected Indian tribes RHPO contacts DAHP and tribes to discuss comments (allow 30 days) RHPO requests updates to report from CR consultant RHPO distributes updated CR survey report to DAHP and affected Indian tribes Functional Lead and/or Project manager incorporates conditions into permit and specifications Monitoring Required Work Proceeds Use IDP in the event of a find Go to Project Completion Go to Construction Monitoring Protocol No Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 Tribal Input Checklist 1 Applicant Name Permit Application Number Point of Contact Anticipated Construction Date Funding Source(s) Comments: 2 Regulatory Context None (exempt project) Executive Order 0505 SEPA Section 106 NEPA Redmond Code Other Comments: 3 Location Address Township, Range Section Legal Description Parcel Number(s) ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 Acre(s) Comments: 4 Project Description/Anticipated Level of Ground Disturbance Comments: 5 Attachments Aerial Imagery Photos Other: Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 6 No potential to cause effects (no resources present, area previously surveyed) Low potential to cause effects (no resources present, low probability area) Potential to cause effects (high to medium probability area without previous survey) Insufficient information to reach a preliminary recommendation (high to medium probability area without previous survey) 7 Action Recommended Cultural Resources Survey o Phase 1 (literature review) o Phase 2 (field survey with shovel probes) o Phase 3 (testing) Construction Monitoring Custom Treatment or Inadvertent Discovery Plan Tribal Monitoring Other (Training for contractors, architectural monitoring) 8 Sources reviewed (check all that apply) Project Plans Project description Mapped soils Geomorphology ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 Modern land use patterns Historic Maps Historic Aerials DAHP WISAARD Redmond Analytic Tool Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Signature: Date: 9 For completion by the tribes Please provide further information on the project We have no interest in consulting on the project Please include the tribe in further communications on the project Please contact the tribe to arrange for cultural monitor during construction Comments: Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Signature: Date: ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 Tribal and Agency Coordination Checklist Phase ✓ Action Who Timeframe Preliminary Coordination 1. Determine funding sources and who is the lead agency – this stipulates who talks to whom & protocols for consultation FL/PM Project initiation 2. Contact DAHP to review procedures and protocols RHPO & FL/PM 3. Contact affected Indian tribes for preliminary review procedures and protocols RHPO & FL/PM 4. Send formal letter (govt. to govt.) – note to DAHP and affected Indian tribes – cc each party RHPO & FL/PM 5. Follow up contact to affected Indian tribes referencing letter – note to DAHP RHPO 6. Meet with affected Indian tribes at their discretion – note to DAHP FL/PM, RHPO, (Mayor &Director at discretion of tribes & RHPO 7. Reply and follow up to comments on letter – note to DAHP RHPO & FL/PM Allow 30 days for review Survey Report Review 8. Develop appropriate cultural resources survey – ensure qualifications of consultant(s) Consultant, RHPO 9. COR distributes the cultural resources survey for review by DAHP and affected Indian tribes RHPO ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 Phase ✓ Action Who Timeframe 10. Reply to comments – note to DAHP RHPO & FL/PM Allow 30 days 11. Possible 30 day review of addendums to cultural resources survey DAHP & Tribes 12. Activate survey recommendations (conditions on the project)* FL/PM & RHPO 13. Develop Inadvertent Discovery Protocol (with input from DAHP and affected Indian tribes) and provide training to staff and crews* Consultant, RHPO & FL/PM 14. Develop Monitoring Plan (with input from DAHP and affected Indian tribes)* Consultant, RHPO & FL/PM Construction and project completion 15. Proceed with project FL/PM 16. Record monitoring activities by qualified archaeologist(s) FL/PM & RHPO 17. Draft cultural resources project report and route for review by DAHP and affected Indian tribes RHPO & Consultant 18. Incorporate information into annual report to DAHP RHPO *These items are based on resources not being present. If resources discovered, additional reports and mitigation plans become necessary. Work is stopped in the respective area(s). ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 Cultural Monitoring of Maintenance & Operations and Capital Project Construction Work Affected Indian tribes may indicate they wish to observe ground disturbing work (typically as part of the review of exempt project list or during the Capital Investment Planning Budgeting review). Cultural monitoring may occur in lieu of or in addition to using an archaeological monitor. At project initiation Maintenance and Operations Staff Leads will consult the list of projects to verify the interest in cultural monitoring. The Maintenance and Operations staff lead or supervisor will coordinate with the RHPO to inform the THPO or designated contact of the timing of the project and arrange for their participation. If the affected Indian tribes request to observe work during Capital Project Construction this will typically be required in the permit and explicitly included in the contract with the prime consultant. The Capital Project Manager will coordinate with the prime contractor and the RHPO to ensure the tribal monitors are informed of the schedule and stop work protocols. The Maintenance and Operations Staff Lead or Capital Project Manager (or designee) will be responsible for ensuring the cultural monitor is informed of and adheres to safety protocols. These individuals will be responsible for informing cultural monitors of changes in schedule. ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 Maintenance and Operations/Capital Project Cultural Monitor Request Procedure 1.8 Project Manager initiates the project 1.9 Consults list of projects of interest as id tifi d b 1.10 Affected Indian tribes have indicated they wish to perform cultural 1.11 Project Manager notifies RHPO 1.12 RHPO contacts affected Indian tribes 1.13 Tribe confirms interest in monitoring and provides contact 1.14 Project manager coordinates with tribal monitor 1.15 Work proceeds Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Steven Mullen‐ Moses Director of Archaeology & Historic Preservation. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe 425‐292‐0249 x2010 [EMAIL REDACTED] Laura Murphy Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 253‐876‐3272 [EMAIL REDACTED] Kerry Lyste THPO/GIS Database Administrator 360‐572‐3072 Richard Young Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 360‐716‐2652 ryoung@tulaliptribes‐nsn.gov Gretchen Kaehler Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 360‐586‐3088 [EMAIL REDACTED] Lance Wollage Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 360‐586‐3536 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 Draft Protocol for Consultant Selection, Scope of Work, and Cultural Resources Report Review City of Redmond Funded Projects Contents Introduction: 1 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 1 Consultant 2 Scope of Work Approval 3 Scope of Work Approval Procedures 4 Cultural Resources Report Review 5 Cultural Resources Report Review Procedures 6 Scope of Work Review Checklist 7 Cultural Resources Report Review Checklist 9 Contacts and Resources 14 Revision Record 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 1 Introduction: City of Redmond projects may require cultural resources surveys or other cultural resources management services. This protocol provides the procedures, workflows, and checklists for City employees to select a consultant, ensure the consultant’s scope of work is appropriate, and review cultural resources reports. As described in the CIP Budgeting Protocol, the Functional Lead needs to budget for the cost of cultural resources management for projects located in areas with a moderate to high probability of containing cultural resources or where recommended by the affected Indian tribes and/or the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The City of Redmond’s Purchasing Department and RHPO will work together to develop a list of approved consultants for cultural resources work. The RHPO will verify that consultants on the list meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualifications (36, CFR Part 61) and the State of Washington/ Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Standards (RCW 27.53.030). Prime consultants or contractors and Redmond staff are requested to use this list or otherwise demonstrate that consultants meeting these qualifications are part of the team. The RHPO will be available for consultation regarding consultants’ qualifications and, as needed, to assist with consultant selection. They will review reports and other materials prepared by the consultants. Reports will be prepared and submitted to the Functional Lead or Capital Project Manager and to the RHPO during the design phase of the project while there is opportunity to develop avoidance measures. Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Cultural Resources Report Review Checklist Checklist to help functional lead and RHPO review and approve the cultural resources report Scope of Work Review Checklist Checklist for use by the RHPO when reviewing the scope of work for projects in areas with known cultural resources or sensitivity to the affected Indian tribes Scope of Work Document provided by describing the goals, methods, and timeline for the cultural resources survey or other cultural resources management activities ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 2 Consultant Selection: The functional lead or capital project manager will work with the project team to develop the initial scope of work (SOW) and required qualifications to be included in the request for proposals/qualifications (RFP/RFQ). The functional lead will verify the following requirements are included in the RFP Scope of work clearly describes the cultural resources services required. Scope of work indicates the qualifications required to perform the work. At minimum should indicate the lead investigator for cultural resources meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualifications (36, CFR Part 61) and Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Standards RCW 27.53.030 for the disciplines required (archaeology, monitoring, history, architectural history, etc.). If archaeological surveys or testing such as during geotechnical work are required the qualifications should also note preferred familiarity with soil conditions of central Puget Sound. Scope of work will request cultural resources consultants be chosen from the approved list or otherwise demonstrate they meet the qualifications stated in the RFP. For projects with identified tribal sensitivity or known archaeological sites the RHPO will review the scope of work and, as needed, may be part of the consultant selection team. When a project has been identified as highly sensitive, the scope of work will require consultants demonstrate their experience with the affected Indian tribe(s). The RHPO will assist the function lead or capital project manager, as needed, to confirm these additional qualifications have been met. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 3 Scope of Work Approval After consultant selection, the project manager will coordinate with the prime and sub consultants and cultural resources consultant to develop the detailed SOW and schedule. The scope of work review checklist indicates recommended areas of consideration (completion of the checklist is optional). For projects with known cultural resources or identified as sensitive to the affected Indian tribes the SOW is developed, the project manager will coordinate with the RHPO to review and finalize the SOW. The SOW should identify the following: Who will supervise the work? Who will conduct the work? Proposed sources for historical, ethnographic, and other research Areas to survey Methods to be followed during survey Proposed coordination with affected Indian tribes Deliverables including all necessary attachments (isolate forms, archaeological site forms, historic property inventory forms) Timeframe for completion ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 4 Scope of Work Approval Procedures Start Here Project manager coordinates with consultants to develop detailed SOW for cultural services Area has known archaeological resources or tribal sensitivity RHPO reviews SOW RHPO consults with DAHP and affected Indian tribes on SOW RHPO notifies project manager of recommended changes to the SOW Project manager and CR consultant incorporate changes into SOW Go to Cultural Resources Report Review Project manager approves SOW No Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 5 Cultural Resources Report Review Once the cultural resources report is submitted it will be reviewed for completeness by the RHPO. The RHPO will also review the document to identify possible monitoring, avoidance, or protective measures to be included in the construction documents. The RHPO will complete the cultural resources report checklist as part of their review. During the review the RHPO will verify that the report adequately describes: The project area The regulatory setting Environmental setting including locations of known cultural resources Survey methods Survey results Newly identified cultural resources Eligibility of identified cultural resources Impacts to previously or newly identified cultural resources Recommendations for avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or monitoring The RHPO will coordinate directly with the project manager to address any inadequacies in the report. Once the report is deemed complete, the RHPO will notify the project manager the report is complete. The RHPO will inform the functional lead of any recommendations for monitoring, avoidance, or protective measures to be implemented during construction. Some City‐initiated capital improvements receive federal or state funding or by way of their programmatic classification involve lead agencies. An example would be improvements coordinated by the City through Connecting Washington program. For these, the RHPO will review cultural resources reports for general accuracy and completeness and notify the functional lead or capital project manager the report is ready for submittal to the lead agency, DAHP, and the affected Indian tribes. The RHPO, functional lead, and capital project manager will coordinate with the CR consultant to provide the cultural resources report to the lead agency and for distribution to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 6 Cultural Resources Report Review Procedures Start Here CR consultant submits draft CR report to functional lead, capital project manager, and RHPO RHPO reviews report for accuracy and completeness and completes CR report review checklist COR is lead agency RHPO distributes the report to affected Indian tribes and DAHP Affected Indian tribes and DAHP recommend conditions? RHPO notifies the project manager of conditions to be included in the contract, construction specications, etc Project Manager releases contract, etc. with conditions Go to Construction Monitoring Contract, etc. prepared without conditions RHPO updates the Analytic Tool with the results of the survey (or other work) RHPO approves release of report to lead agency and other parties Lead agency coordinates distribution of report and might direct RHPO to undertake distribution RHPO included in review of comments Lead agency provides conditions for contract No No Yes Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 7 Scope of Work Review Checklist 1 Principal Investigator(s) Meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for appropriate disciplines (i.e. archaeology, architectural history) List Names and Qualifications: 2 Proposed Sources WISAARD Local Repositories Tribal Sources 3 Field Studies Archaeological Pedestrian o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area Shovel Probes o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area Architectural Includes visual effects Proposed Supporting Documentation ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 8 4 Cultural Resources Report Isolate Forms Archaeological Site Forms Historic Property Inventory Forms Other ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 9 Cultural Resources Report Review Checklist 1 Principal Investigator(s) Meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for appropriate disciplines (i.e. archaeology, architectural history) Comments: 2 Project Description Location Construction areas Haul routes Staging areas Depth of ground disturbance Timeline Time of year Hours of construction Equipment proposed Ground disturbing Noise producing Light/ Glare Producing Comments: 3 Regulatory Setting (Circle all that apply) Funding Source: Local State Federal Private ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 10 Permit Required: Local State Federal Comments: 4 Area of Potential Effects or Study Area USGS Map Aerial photograph Includes direct and indirect impacts Comments: 5 Methods Literature Review WISAARD Local Repositories Tribal Sources Tribal Coordination Outreach to the affected Indian tribes Field studies Pedestrian o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 11 5 Methods Shovel Probes o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area Architectural surveys include visual/auditory impacts Comments: 6 Literature Review Appropriate to scope of the project Variety of sources including primary Covers prehistory, ethnography, historic context Comments: 7 Results General Field methods match the described methods or indicate why the deviation Photographs of general vicinity and survey area Archaeology Photographs of shovel probes Tables with soil profiles Photographs of context and specific conditions at sites (if applicable) Photographs of artifacts (if applicable) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 12 Historic Structures Photographs of vicinity, landscape, individual structures including outbuildings Statement of significance Relates to specific historic context of the area Physical Description Includes landscape and context Supporting Documentation Isolate Forms Archaeological Site Forms Historic Property Inventory Forms Comments: 8 NRHP Eligibility Evaluations (both archaeology and historic structures) Addresses all 4 criteria Includes consideration for local significance Addresses City of Redmond Heritage Register Comments: 9 Effects No Historic Properties affected Long‐term Short‐term Visual and auditory Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 13 10 Recommendations Options provided for each measure are appropriate to the impact and significance of the eligible resource: Avoidance Minimization Mitigation Other (construction monitoring, use of a specialized Inadvertent Discovery Plan or Treatment Plan) Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 14 Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 15 Draft Protocol for Cultural Resources Monitoring City of Redmond Funded Projects Contents Introduction: 1 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures 3 Criteria for Employing Cultural Resources Monitors 4 Selection of the Cultural Resources Monitor 5 Approval of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan 5 Use of the Inadvertent Discovery Plan 5 Monitoring Inspections 6 Review of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report 6 Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Checklist 9 Inadvertent Discovery Plan Template 13 Cultural Resources Monitoring Inspection Checklist Error! Bookmark not defined. Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Checklist Error! Bookmark not defined. Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Template Error! Bookmark not defined. Contacts 47 Revision Record 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 1 Introduction: City of Redmond may use cultural resources monitors during construction projects, geotechnical borings, and other ground disturbing work depending on the probability of encountering cultural resources. This protocol describes the criteria and procedures for employing monitors, selecting a monitor, approving a monitoring plan, inspecting monitoring, and reviewing a monitoring report. The procedures described in this protocol will typically be employed for Capital Improvement Program projects, will also be used for work performed by City of Redmond Maintenance and Operations groups, and monitoring of private development projects when recommended by the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO). This protocol provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. Additional information can be found in the Cultural Resources Management Plan. Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Capital Investment Project (CIP) Prime Consultant Consultant to the City of Redmond. This party has typically been awarded the contract to perform the majority of design and/or construction work on a project. This party will engage sub‐consultants, consultants to provide services including cultural resources monitoring. Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Review Checklist Checklist to help Capital Project Manager and Redmond Historic Preservation Officer review and approve cultural resources monitoring plan Inadvertent Discovery Plan Template Plan to be used during construction and maintenance work to guide the construction crew when cultural resources materials are discovered Document shall be provided to contractors as a guide Cultural Resources Monitoring Inspection Checklist Checklist to be used by inspectors verifying cultural resources monitors are on site and any special provisions are in place. This checklist shall be used for inspections of private development. Tribal/Cultural Monitoring Plan Plan to use members of affected Indian tribes to monitor construction activities in areas that are sensitive to the tribe. Daily Inspection Report Daily report prepared by the inspector. The inspector shall note the times cultural resources monitors are on site and confirm that all measures to protect cultural resources (as described in the specifications) are being ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 2 Term Definition followed in the report. Copies of relevant sections of the Daily Inspection Report will be provided to DAHP/ and the affected Indian tribes. Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Checklist Checklist to be completed by Redmond Historic Preservation when reviewing monitoring reports Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Template Template of key factors to be included in a cultural resources monitoring plan Template shall can be used by Capital Project Manager in developing and reviewing scopes of work Template shall also be provided to CIP Prime Consultants for use by their cultural resources monitors. The template may be modified to meet the needs of the individual project. Inadvertent Discovery Log Log of activities performed by City of Redmond employees and cultural resources monitors when responding to an inadvertent find. Principal Investigator Cultural resources specialist who is lead for the project. The principal investigator will meet the Professional Qualifications Standards of the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61). Cultural Resources Monitor Monitor assigned to observe construction or other work that has the potential to impact cultural resources. Monitors are typically archaeologists but other disciplines (such as architectural historians) may be required depending on the nature of the work. Cultural Resources Professional Personnel with education and experience documenting and analyzing cultural resources. The Professional Qualifications Standards of the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61) describe the requirements to serve in these positions (archaeologist, historian, architectural historian, historic architect). These personnel may be used to supplement the work performed by a cultural resources monitor on the construction site. For example, a historian may be required to research and write a history of the project work site. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 3 Projects Requiring Cultural Resources Monitoring Monitoring protocols will depend on the scope, scale and nature of the activity or project. For most small‐scale projects the stand alone Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) can be implemented. This plan will guide all ground‐disturbing activities, and will facilitate project management by identifying an organizational structure, and provide a checklist to ensure compliance with all monitoring measures. The IDP will also serve as a working document to which project‐specific elements and conditions can be included. For more expansive or complex projects with multiple ground‐disturbing elements or phases, COR may require a project specific Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan to be developed. In such cases the COR will consult with the CIP Prime contractor (and other parties, as appropriate) to develop standards and criteria for monitoring excavation activities and determining when remedial actions are required or work must be stopped. These plans will incorporate guidelines developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the National Park Service to protect cultural resources. The following diagram provides an overview of the types of monitoring that will be employed for typical ground disturbing projects in Redmond. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 4 Criteria for Employing Cultural Resources Monitors Cultural resources monitors shall be employed when recommended by the RHPO or in a cultural resources report. The RHPO will provide the recommendation after coordination with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and/or the affected Indian tribes. Cultural resources monitors may be required such as when: A project is in proximity to a known archaeological site A project is in proximity to an area identified as significant to the affected Indian tribes A project is in moderate or high probability areas A project involves construction at depths or locations where archaeological shovel probes are not possible A project involves the property of or is in close proximity as to have possible effects on a City of Redmond Historic Landmark •Implement standard IDP •Use cultural/tribal monitor when requested by affected Indian tribes Routine Maintenance •Implement standard IDP •Consult with the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer •If involving a City of Redmond Landmark, pursue Certificate of Appropriateness •Use cultural resources professional to monitor changes to masonry, windows, and other designated features when required by RHPO When project requires monitoring of or involves modifications to historic structures •Use cultural /tribal monitor when requested by affected Indian tribes •Implement standard IDP Construction with limited ground disturbance •Develop/Implement specialized Cultural Resources Monitoring plan •Develop/Implement cultural/tribal monitoring plan Multi‐area, multi‐phase construction ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 5 Selection of the Cultural Resources Monitor The Capital Project Manager will coordinate with the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) to select a cultural resources monitor for the project. This will typically occur as part of the selection of the CIP Prime Consultant. If a project requires monitoring during geotechnical boring or during the project’s early design phases, a monitor may be selected under a separate contract. The cultural resources monitor’s qualifications and the scope of work will be reviewed following the procedures in Consultant Selection, Scope of Work, and Survey Report Review Protocol. Approval of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan The Capital Project Manager will coordinate with the designated cultural resources monitor to develop the Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. A template for Cultural Resources Monitoring Plans is included in this protocol and shall be provided to the cultural resources monitor as a guide in preparing their plan. Once the monitoring plan is developed, the Capital Project Manager will coordinate with the RHPO to review and finalize the plan. The plan will identify the following: Who will supervise the work Who will conduct the work Procedures for work safety and job site sign‐in Proposed sources for historical, ethnographic, and other research Areas where monitoring will occur Methods to be followed during monitoring Proposed coordination with affected Indian tribes, RHPO, and DAHP Stop work procedures Deliverables address all necessary attachments (historic property inventory forms, isolate forms, archaeological site forms) Time frame for completion The Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Review Checklist will be completed by the Capital Project Manager and the RHPO. Coordination with the RHPO For projects requiring limited (one to five days) monitoring or with minimal ground disturbance such as monitoring geotechnical borings, the cultural resources monitor may coordinate directly with the RHPO in lieu of preparing a formal plan. The cultural resources monitor shall use the standard Inadvertent Discovery Plan in the event that a project‐specific Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan has not been previously established. The completed Inadvertent Discovery Plan describes stop work procedures, procedures for coordinating with the ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 6 affected Indian tribes and DAHP, and recording techniques. Before the start of monitoring, the cultural resources monitor will provide the anticipated start and end dates for monitoring. After the completion of monitoring the cultural resources monitor will inform the RHPO of the outcome of the monitoring as well as any interaction with City of Redmond staff, the affected Indian tribes, or with DAHP. Use of the Standard Inadvertent Discovery Plan Pre‐project planning and review is not a guarantee that unknown cultural resources will not be discovered in the course of a project. Even routine maintenance and construction activities have the potential to reveal previously undocumented sites. If COR maintenance staff, contractor, or archaeological monitor (if on site) uncover any materials that appear to be older than 50 years, the COR standard IDP will be implemented to document the site, identify the eligibility, and minimize, mitigate and avoid further disturbance to cultural resources. The COR will establish an on‐call agreement with a professional archaeologist who will be able to be on site within 4 hours of notification of a possible find. Monitoring Inspections of Private Development For projects requiring more than 5 days of monitoring, the Private Development Inspector will perform random inspections of the work site to ensure that the provisions of the monitoring plan are being met. The inspection will include checking the safety log to verify monitors have been on site. The inspector will complete the Cultural Resources Monitoring Inspection Checklist during each visit. Monitoring Inspections of COR Development Projects For COR construction projects, the cultural resources monitor will notify the inspector when they are on site, provide a summary of the monitoring results, and coordinate regarding the next site visit prior to leaving the job site. The inspector will document the monitor’s name, company, site activities, and a summary of monitoring activities in the Daily Inspection Report. Copies of the relevant portions of the Daily Inspection Report will be provided to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. The cultural resources monitor will provide daily field reports to the Capital Project Manager and the RHPO (the frequency and submittal process will be determined on a project by project basis and established in the scope of work and contract with the cultural resources monitor). Review of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Cultural Resources Monitoring Reports will typically be submitted by the cultural resources monitor after the completion of construction and/or ground disturbing work. For projects with an extended construction cycle, interim monitoring reports may be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 7 Once the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report is submitted it will be reviewed for completeness by the RHPO. The RHPO will complete the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Review Checklist as part of their review. The RHPO will distribute copies of the monitoring report to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes and ensure that the Capital Project Manager and CIP Project Inspector receive a copy of the correspondence. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 8 Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures COR Projects The following flowchart provides an overview of the monitoring procedures. Start here RHPO recommends monitoring Capital Project Manager retains CR montiors Capital Project Manager provides CR Monitoring Plan Template and Inadvertent Discovery Plan Template to CR monitors Project requires more than 5 days of monitoring CR monitor develops monitoring plan Capital Project Manager and RHPO review the CR Monitoring Plan and complete the CR Monitoring Plan Review Checklist Inspector records information on monitoring and special provisions in the Dailiy Inspection Report Capital Project Manager and RHPO review the CR Monitoring Report Review Checklist and provide copies of the relevant sections of the Daily Inspection Report to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes CR monitor coordinates with RHPO, PM and Inspector on dates and timing of monitoring . CR monitor employs Inadvertent Discovery Plan in the event of a find No Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 9 Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures Private Development Projects The following flowchart provides an overview of the monitoring procedures. Start here RHPO recommends monitoring Developer retainsp CR monitors Developer or planner provides CR Monitoring Plan Template and Inadvertent Discovery Plan Template to CR monitors Project requires more than 5 days of monitoring CR monitor develops monitoring plan RHPO reviews the CR Monitoring Plan and complete the CR Monitoring Plan Review Checklist Inspector performs spot visits to the site and records information in Cultural Resources Monitoring Inspection Checklist RHPOs reviews the CR Monitoring Report Review Checklist and provide copies of the of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Inspection Checklist to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes CR Montior coordinates with RHPO, PM, and Inspector on dates and timing of monitoring CR monitor employs Inadvertent Discovery Plan in the event of a find No Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 10 Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Checklist 1 Principal Investigator(s) Meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for appropriate disciplines (i.e. archaeology, architectural history) List Names and Qualifications: 2 Background Plan describes the regulatory authority Plan describes the safety and sign‐in procedures Plan describes the construction plans and techniques Plan describes previous surveys and history of the area Plan addresses the types of resources that may be encountered Comments: 3 Extent of Monitoring Plan describes the areas to be monitored Plan describes the timing of the monitoring Plan describes the depth of monitoring Comments: 4 Monitoring Procedures Stop Work Authority Field Records ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 11 Monitoring Techniques Procedures in the event of a find Procedures for human remains Identification and Evaluation of materials during monitoring Comments: 5 Artifacts, Documentation, and Curation Plan describes how artifacts will be cared for in the field, analyzed, and evaluated post‐field Plan identifies the methods for documenting resources including reports, inventory forms. Include a discussion of review time frames and submittal process Plan describes the proposed methods for artifact curation including repositories Comments: 6 Contacts and Coordination Plan describes who will be contacted in the event of finds Plan describes who will coordinate with the affected Indian tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Comments: Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Signature and Date ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 12 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 13 Cultural Resources Private Development Monitoring Inspection Checklist 1 Daily Log Monitors have checked in and signed the safety log Comments: 2 Location of Monitors Monitors in place in the areas described in the monitoring plan Comments: 3 Signature of Inspector and Date of Inspection ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 14 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Checklist 1 Principal Investigator(s) Meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for appropriate disciplines (i.e. archaeology, architectural history) List Names and Qualifications: 2 Background Report describes the regulatory authority Report describes the construction plans and techniques Report describes previous surveys and history of the area Report addresses the types of resources that were expected Comments: 3 Extent of Monitoring Report describes the areas where monitoring occurred and resources for deviation Report describes the timing of the monitoring Report describes the depth of monitoring Comments: 4 Monitoring Results Report describes the conditions encountered including soils, unexpected conditions, and finds Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 15 5 Artifacts, Documentation, and Curation Report describes how artifacts were handled and analyzed Report identifies how and where artifacts will be curated Comments: 6 Supporting Documentation Isolate Forms Archaeological Site Forms Historic Property Inventory Forms Daily Field Log with photographs Artifact catalog (if needed) 1.2 7 Signature of Redmond Historic Preservation Officer and Date 1.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 16 Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Template 1.5 Introduction: Provide short description of the project, the client, location, regulatory setting and the reason for construction monitoring. Reference any known archaeological sites and significance. 1.6 Regulatory Setting Summarize applicable cultural resources regulations including the Redmond Code, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and State Environmental Policy Act. 1.7 Environmental Background* Geology and Soils Describe the geology, topography, and soils. Flora and Fauna Describe flora and fauna common to the area. Include species that may be significant indicators of prehistoric uses of the area. 1.8 Historical Background* Prehistory Describe known prehistoric uses of the area. Recent History Describe recent history of the area. 1.9 Previous Cultural Resources Studies Describe results of previous cultural resources studies. Describe known historic properties in the project area relate to potential impacts from the project. 1.10 Construction Monitoring Procedures Construction Description Provide an overview including maps and diagrams of planned ground disturbing work. Personnel Describe the qualifications of the cultural resources personnel supervising and performing the monitoring and associated cultural resources work. The principal investigator must meet the ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 17 Professional Qualification Standards (36 CRF Part 61). This section will also describe the roles and necessary qualifications of other cultural resources professionals who may be involved in the project. Anticipated Finds Describe the types of archaeological materials that are likely to be encountered in the area. Extent of Monitoring Describe the areas where monitoring will occur. Indicate the anticipated time frames and depth of monitoring. 1.11 Monitoring Procedures Field Records Describe records to be maintained by cultural resources monitors. Monitoring Techniques Describe methods used by cultural resources monitors for monitoring in relation to the construction plan. 1.12 Procedures in the Event of a Find Stop Work Describe who has the authority to stop work and the notification procedures. Identification and Evaluation of Materials during Monitoring Describe how materials will be evaluated, the thresholds for stopping work, and criteria for evaluation. 1.13 Artifacts, Documentation, and Curation Artifacts Describe treatment of artifacts during monitoring and plans for examination of the artifacts by a cultural resources professional in a laboratory setting. This section should outline how artifacts will be transported and stored as well as analysis methods. Documentation Describe the methods the cultural resources professional will follow for documenting resources including reports, inventory forms. Include a discussion of timeline for report to be reviewed by RHPO and returned for comments, submittal to appropriate agencies and tribes for review, and time frame for final submission. Curation Describe plan for artifact curation including proposed repositories. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 18 Bibliography / List of References This section will provide a bibliography of references used by the cultural resources professional to develop the monitoring plan. References will include applicable guidelines from the National Park Service and DAHP and previous studies of the geographical location and the types of artifacts expected. *section may be abbreviated if prepared as part of a larger study that includes a survey or cultural resources technical report with these areas described in detail. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 19 Standard Inadvertent Discovery Plan Template PLAN AND PROCEDURES FOR THE UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS PROJECT, REDMOND, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON 1.14 1. INTRODUCTION The [ ] intends to [construct/plan/develop] the project. The purpose of this project is to The following Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) outlines procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered. 1.15 2. RECOGNIZING CULTURAL RESOURCES A cultural resource discovery could be prehistoric or historic. Examples include: An accumulation of shell, burned rocks, or other food related materials, Bones or small pieces of bone, An area of charcoal or very dark stained soil with artifacts, Stone tools or waste flakes (i.e. an arrowhead, or stone chips), Clusters of tin cans or bottles, logging or agricultural equipment that appears to be older than 50 years, Buried railroad tracks, decking, or other industrial materials. When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource. 1.16 3. ON‐SITE RESPONSIBILITIES STEP 1: STOP WORK. If any member of the construction team believes that he or she has uncovered a cultural resource at any point in the project, they will immediately inform the CIP Project Inspector and the Capital Project Manager. The CIP inspector and Capital Project Manager will immediately authorize the temporary stop of all work in the immediate area of the discovery. The discovery location shall be secured until an archaeologist arrives at the site. This can be done with materials available on site including cones and tape, or moving vehicles to block access to the discovery location. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 20 STEP 2: INITIATE the IDP LOG. The IDP Log is initiated by the person who discovers the cultural resources and/or makes the first contact to the CIP inspector and CIP PM. STEP 3: NOTIFY MONITOR. If there is an archaeological monitor for the project, the CIP Inspector or Capital Project Manager will notify that person. If there is a monitoring plan in place, the monitor will follow its provisions. STEP 4: NOTIFY REDMOND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. The Capital Project Manager or CIP Inspector will notify the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer and the Deputy City Administrator. STEP 5: If the project does not have an archaeological monitor, the PM or Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will contact the on‐call archaeologist to conduct a site visit and determine the nature of the find, its extent, and methods used to protect the site. The archaeologist may recommend additional measures such as construction fencing or other barriers to protect the site. Please edit the titles as necessary, and provide contact information for other staff or consultants responsible for these roles. Project Manager: Name Number email Redmond Historic Preservation Officer: Name Number email Deputy City Administrator: Name Number email Assigned Alternates: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 21 Assigned Project Manager Alternate: Name Number email Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Alternate: Name Number email Deputy City Administrator Alternate: Name Number email The Project Manager and the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will make all other calls and notifications (to the affected Indian tribes, DAHP, and other agencies as described under 4. Further Contacts and Consultation. If human remains are encountered, treat them with dignity and respect at all times. Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for temporary protection in place and to shield them from being photographed. Do not speak with the media. 1.17 4. FURTHER CONTACTS AND CONSULTATION A. Project Manager’s Responsibilities: Protect Find: The Project Manager is responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery site. All work will stop in an area adequate to provide for the total security, protection, and integrity of the resource. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. Work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed following provisions for treating archaeological/cultural material as set forth in this document. Direct Construction Elsewhere On‐site: The Project Manager may direct construction away from cultural resources to work in other areas prior to contacting the RHPO and DAHP. Contact Redmond Historic Preservation Officer: If the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer not yet been contacted, the Project Manager will do so. B. Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Responsibilities: Identify Find: The Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will ensure that a qualified professional archaeologist examines the find to determine if it is archaeological. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 22 o If it is determined not archaeological, work may proceed with no further delay. o If it is determined to be archaeological, the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will continue with notifications to the affected Indian tribes and DAHP. o If the find may be human remains or funerary objects, the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will ensure that a qualified physical anthropologist examines the find. If it is determined to be human remains, the procedure described in Section 5 will be followed. Notify DAHP: The Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will contact the involved federal agencies (if any were identified during project planning) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Notify Affected Indian tribes: If the discovery may relate to Native American interests, the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will also contact the affected Indian tribes. General Contacts Federal Agencies: Agency: Name Title Number Email Agency: Name Title Number Email ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 23 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Dr. Allyson Brooks State Historic Preservation Officer 360‐586‐3066 Dr. Guy Tasa State Physical Anthropologist 360‐586‐3534 or Rob Whitlam, Ph.D. Staff Archaeologist 360‐586‐3050 or ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 24 Tribes consulted on this project are: Tribe: Name Title Tribe: Name Title Tribe: Name Title Tribe: Name Title Tribe: Name Title Tribe: Name Title Contacts to affected Indian tribes will only be made by the RHPO or the professional archaeologist with approval from the RHPO. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 25 C. Further Activities Archaeological discoveries will be documented as described in Section 6. Construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 26 1.18 5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL If human remains are encountered, treat them with dignity and respect at all times. Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for temporary protection in place and to shield them from being photographed. Do not speak with the media. Any human skeletal remains, regardless of antiquity or ethnic origin, will at all times be treated with dignity and respect. If the project occurs on non‐federal lands, [the City of Redmond ] will comply with applicable state and federal laws, and the following procedure: (If the project occurs on federal lands the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 apply, and the responsible federal agency will follow its provisions. Note that state highways that cross federal lands are on an easement and are not owned by the state.) A. Notify Law Enforcement Agency or Coroner’s Office: In addition to the actions described in Sections 3 and 4, the Project Manager will immediately notify the local law enforcement agency and Medical Examiner’s office. Law enforcement may require that you call 911, rather than the business line. The Medical Examiner (with assistance of law enforcement personnel) will determine if the remains are human, whether the discovery site constitutes a crime scene, and will notify DAHP. King County Medical Examiner (206) 731‐3232 Guy Tasa State Physical Anthropologist, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (360) 586‐3534 B. Participate in Consultation: Per RCW 27.44.055, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60, DAHP will have jurisdiction over non‐forensic human remains. City of Redmond personnel will participate in consultation. C. Further Activities: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 27 Documentation of human skeletal remains and funerary objects will be agreed upon through the consultation process described in RCW 27.44.055, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60. When consultation and documentation activities are complete, construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. 1.19 6. DOCUMENTATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS Archaeological deposits discovered during construction will be assumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D until a formal Determination of Eligibility is made. [RECIPIENT] The RHPO will ensure the proper documentation and assessment of any discovered cultural resources in cooperation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, affected Indian tribes, and a contracted cultural resources monitor/consultant (if any). All prehistoric and historic cultural material discovered during project construction will be recorded by a professional archaeologist on cultural resource site or isolate form using standard techniques. Site overviews, features, and artifacts will be photographed; stratigraphic profiles and soil/sediment descriptions will be prepared for subsurface exposures. Discovery locations will be documented on scaled site plans and site location maps. Cultural features, horizons and artifacts detected in buried sediments may require further evaluation using hand‐dug test units. Units may be dug in controlled fashion to expose features, collect samples from undisturbed contexts, or interpret complex stratigraphy. A test excavation unit or small trench might also be used to determine if an intact occupation surface is present. Test units will be used only when necessary to gather information on the nature, extent, and integrity of subsurface cultural deposits to evaluate the site’s significance Spatial information, depth of excavation levels, natural and cultural stratigraphy, presence or absence of cultural material, and depth to sterile soil, regolith, or bedrock will be recorded for each probe on a standard form. Test excavation units will be recorded on unit‐level forms, which include plan maps for each excavated level, and material type, number, and vertical provenience (depth below surface and stratum association where applicable) for all artifacts recovered from the level. A stratigraphic profile will be drawn for at least one wall of each test excavation unit. Sediments excavated for purposes of cultural resources investigation will be screened through 1/8‐ inch mesh, unless soil conditions warrant 1/4‐inch mesh. All prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from the surface and from probes and excavation units will be analyzed, catalogued, and temporarily curated. Ultimate disposition of cultural materials will ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 28 be determined in consultation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, and the affected Indian tribes. Within 90 days of concluding fieldwork, a technical report describing any and all monitoring and resultant archaeological excavations will be provided to the Project Manager, who will forward the report to the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer for review and delivery to the federal agencies (if any), SHPO, and the affected Indian tribe(s). In the event assessment activity exposes human remains (burials, isolated teeth, or bones), the process described in Section 5 above will be followed. 1.20 7. PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION Project construction outside the discovery location may continue while documentation and assessment of the cultural resources proceed. A professional archaeologist must determine the boundaries of the discovery location. In consultation with DAHP and any affected Indian tribes, the City of Redmond Project Manager and Redmond Historic Preservation Officer will determine the appropriate level of documentation and treatment of the resource. If there is a federal nexus, Section 106 consultation and associated federal laws will make the final determinations about treatment and documentation. Construction may continue at the discovery location only after the process outlined in this plan is followed and [ insert name of responsible party here, typically City of Redmond or the developer DAHP, any affected Indian tribes, Ecology (and the federal agencies, if any) determine that compliance with state and federal laws is complete. 1.21 8. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY The [ insert name of responsible party here, typically City of Redmond or the developer ] is responsible for developing an IDP. The IDP must be immediately available by request by any party. An IDP must be immediately available and be implemented to address any discovery. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 29 Attachment 1 WSDOT Guidelines for identifying cultural materials ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 1 Stone Artifacts from Oregon • Glass-like material • Angular • “Unusual” material for area • “Unusual” shape • Regularity of flaking • Variability of size ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 2 Artifacts from Unknown Proveniences • Striations or scratching • Unusual or unnatural shapes • Unusual stone • Etching • Perforations • Pecking ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 2 Artifacts from Unknown Proveniences • Regularity in modifications • Variability of size, function, and complexity ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 3 Bone Awls from Oregon and Bone Wedge from California • Often smooth • Unusual shape • Carved • Often pointed if used as a tool • Often wedge shaped like a “shoe horn” ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 4 Tooth Pendant and Bone Pendants from Oregon and Washington • Often smooth • Unusual shape • Perforated • Variability of size ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 5 Artifacts from Mud Bay, Olympia, Washington I see fiber or wood artifacts. • Wet environments needed for preservation • Variability of size, function, and complexity • Rare ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 6 Artifacts from Downtown Seattle, Alaskan Way Viaduct (Upper Left and Lower) and Unknown Site (Upper Right) I see historic period artifacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 7 Unknown Sites • Human activities leave traces in the ground that may or may not have artifacts associated with them • “Unusual” accumulations of rock (especially fire-cracked rock) • “Unusual” shaped accumulations of rock similar to a fire ring) • Charcoal or charcoal-stained soils • Oxidized or burnt-looking soils • Accumulations of shell ---PAGE BREAK--- I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 7 Unknown Sites • Accumulations of bone or artifacts • Look for the “unusual” or out of place rock piles or accumulations in areas with few rock) ---PAGE BREAK--- I might implement the IDP / UDP if … 8 Site on Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, near WSDOT ROW along SR 164 • “Unusual” accumulations of rock (especially fire-cracked rock) • “Unusual” shaped accumulations of rock similar to a fire ring) • Look for the “unusual” or out of place rock piles or accumulations in areas with few rock) ---PAGE BREAK--- I might implement the IDP / UDP if … Layers of shell midden • Often have a layered or “layer cake” appearance • Often associated with black or blackish soil • Often have very crush and compacted shell ---PAGE BREAK--- I might implement the IDP / UDP if … Historic Debris ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB I might implement the IDP I UDP if I see historic foundations or buried structures. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11/3/2014 KMB 45KI924, In WSDOT ROW for SR 99 Tunnel 1Q ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2 Guidelines for identifying and responding to historic period artifacts Materials from the historic period (approximately 1850 to 50 years before today) are often encountered during construction. Artifacts may range from the common (ex: nails, lumber, cans, and bottles) to uncommon (historic roads made of brick or cedar). The importance of these materials will depend on their context and current state of preservation. For example, the cedar road may provide important information about the history of transportation and road construction in the Puget Sound Region. A single can would have limited value but a large grouping of cans may help us to understand the habits and tastes of the construction workers of a particular period. A single nail is unlikely to provide much information, but a collection of nails and lumber may be the remnants of an important structure. Curbs and utility pipes may provide information on the original path of the road or the timing of when water became available to a community. Historic period sites are afforded the same protections under NHPA and Washington State law as prehistoric sites. Decisions about the eligibility and treatment of historic archeological sites must be made by a professional archaeologist, DAHP, and the affected tribes. The process of responding to the find will be the same as for precontact materials (as described in the IDP). Construction personnel are often highly knowledgeable about the materials found at construction sites and should be used a resource in identifying historic period materials found during ground disturbance. The professional archaeologist will then conduct additional research to determine if those materials meet the criteria for eligibility for the NRHP or other protections. When there are existing records about the materials found, and records of the historical development of the area, there is often little more that can be learned from the site. The archaeologist may therefore often recommend that the material is not significant and does not require further investigation. Work can resume quickly. For many projects it will be beneficial to develop a custom archaeological monitoring plan. This plan will be developed by a cultural resources professional (typically an archaeologist who will serve as the cultural resource monitor). The cultural resources professional can work with the COR utilities department to identify the locations of historic utility lines and other historic materials that are likely to be encountered speeding the process of identification and review. For such plans, it may be possible to gain approval, on a project by project basis, for construction personnel to document the resource ---PAGE BREAK--- through photography and not delay construction instead of arranging for an archaeologist to come to the project site. Attachment 3 COR Inadvertent Discovery Plan Log ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 4 Sample completed Inadvertent Discovery Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Contacts Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Dr. Guy Tasa State Physical Anthropologist 360‐586‐3534 [EMAIL REDACTED] King County Medical Examiner’s Office 206‐731‐3232 Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Protocol for Project Completion Capital Investment Programs Contents Introduction: 1 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 1 Preparing the Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist 2 Project Completion Procedures 3 Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist 4 Contacts and Resources 6 Revision Record 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 1 Introduction: Projects funded through the City of Redmond’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) may require cultural resources work during several phases of the project. Cultural resources services may include pre‐ construction surveys, construction monitoring, and other mitigation work. The range of services will depend on the project and the sensitivity of the location where the project occurs. This protocol will typically be followed at the completion of the project, however, when construction will last more than two years, this protocol may be implemented at intervals throughout the project. This protocol provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. Additional information can be found in the Cultural Resources Management Plan. Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist Checklist to document cultural resources work related to a project. Analytic Tool Geographic Information Systems layers to help identify probability of encountering cultural resources ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 2 Preparing the Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist Redmond’s Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) will prepare a project debriefing checklist at project completion (or other determined intervals) at the request of the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and/or the affected Indian tribes. The RHPO will provide the document to the Capital Project Manager for review and finalization prior to distribution to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes. The checklist will summarize cultural resources work performed as part of the project including: Geotechnical boring monitoring Construction monitoring Special protection measures Inadvertent discoveries Mitigation work Copies of monitoring reports and mitigation documents will be appended to the Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 3 Project Completion Procedures DAHP and/or affected Indian tribes request CR Debriefing Checklist for project RHPO prepares CR Debriefing Checklist RHPO provides CR Debriefing Checklist to Capital Project Manager Capital Project Manager finalizes CR Debriefing Checklist RHPO distributes CR Debriefing Checklist to DAHP and affected Indian tribes DAHP and/affected Indian tribes review CR Debriefing Checklist and provide comments within 30 days RHPO and Capital Project Manager revise and redistribute CR Debriefing Checklist Project Complete Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 4 Cultural Resources Debriefing Checklist 1 Project Name Division Project # Point of Contact: Construction Date: Funding Source(s) Comments: 2 Regulatory Setting (Circle all that apply) Funding Source: Local State Federal Private Permit Required: Local State Federal Comments: 3 Location Address Legal Description Parcel Number(s) Acre(s) Comments: 4 Cultural Resources Activities (attach reports to this document) Geotechnical Boring Cultural Monitoring Archaeological Monitoring Protective measures for known archaeological resources Protective measures for known architectural resources Data Recovery ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 5 Unanticipated Discoveries Other Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 6 Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 7 Draft Protocol for Private Development Cultural Resources Review Contents Introduction: 8 Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) 8 Over the Counter Permits (Exempt projects) 9 Over the Counter Permit Application Procedures 10 Over the Counter Permit Inspection Procedures 11 Pre‐Application and Single‐Family EL Review 12 Pre‐Application and Single‐Family EL Review Procedures 13 PREP Process Application Review 14 PREP Process Permit Application Review Procedures 15 Cultural Resources Report Review 18 Cultural Resources Report Review Procedures 19 Cultural Resources Survey Report Review Checklist (Completed by RHPO) 20 Tribal Consultation Checklist (Completed by RHPO) 25 Environmental Review 28 Environmental Review Procedures 29 Contacts and Resources 30 Revision Record 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 8 Introduction: The approach for private development applications is to begin implementation of cultural resource assessments early in the process to first determine based on proposed project location, what steps are needed and then integrate the cultural resource management steps with the permit process workflows as much as possible. Applicants for land use, building, and demolition permits will likely need to conduct cultural resources studies if the proposed project is located in an area with a moderate to high probability of containing cultural resources or the study is otherwise required by the affected Indian tribes and/or the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). This will typically consist of a cultural resources survey, accompanying report evaluating the potential of the project impacting cultural resources, and recommendations for response to potential cultural resources. Certain permits will be exempt from cultural resources review. The list of the exempt permit types is attached to the CRMP, but includes activities where the permit is obtained over the counter at the time of application and no staff review occurs. This protocol provides information on the responsibilities of Redmond staff members, flowcharts, and checklists. Additional information can be found in the CRMP. Definitions and Terminology (refer to CRMP for additional definitions) Term Definition Pre‐Application (Pre‐ App) Optional City of Redmond process that allows development applicants to meet with planning staff to discuss the project and obtain information on steps and studies that will be required during the permit review Single‐Family Existing Lot (SFEL) The Single‐Family Existing Lot Feasibility Study is a City of Redmond process that allows development applicants of changes to existing single‐family lots to meet with planning staff to discuss the project and obtain information on steps and studies that will be required during the permit review. Pre Review Entitlement Process (PREP) Optional City of Redmond program that allows applicants to work with city staff to produce a code‐compliant application. Project information and required studies are submitted in phases with an expedited review schedule Cultural Resources Report Review Checklist Checklist to help planner and RHPO evaluate the completeness of the cultural resources report and the need for additional services Issues Matrix Spreadsheet used by planning staff to note issues related to a development application ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 9 Term Definition Analytic Tool Geographic Information Systems layers to help identify probability of encountering cultural resources. The RHPO has access to layers with confidential information on cultural resources in the Redmond area Over the Counter Permits (Exempt projects) Permits for routine projects requiring minimal ground disturbance on properties with existing development may be exempt* from cultural resources review. Examples of these permits include tree removal, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work. A complete list of these permits is attached to the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). They are typically obtained online or over the counter with no review by the Planning staff. The homeowner or contractor will complete the work and arrange for a city inspector to conduct a site visit to evaluate the work. For exempt projects, the Development Review staff will notify the applicant of the probability of archaeological resources, if moderate or high, based on preliminary review of a cultural resources analytic map and direct the applicant to the educational brochure describing cultural resources and procedures to follow in the event cultural materials are found. During the site visit, the inspector will be responsible for following the Inadvertent Discovery Procedure if cultural materials are observed. *Per Appendix J – Cultural Resources Management Plan Review and Revisions, the list of exempt permit types and activities are reviewed with the DAHP and affected Indian tribes annual for the first three years of the CRMP. Request for exemption thereafter shall be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis in consultation with the DAHP and affected Indian tribes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 10 Over the Counter Permit Application Procedures Start Here Application received and reviewed by planner. Planner consults with the RHPO regarding preliminary recommendations regarding CR approach Planner coordinates with RHPO when ground disturbance is significant and site is in high to moderate probability area for cultural resources. RHPO completes assessment procedures and provides required CR approach, as defined for pre‐app, SFEL, and PREP process Applicant conducts work consistent with conditions established from required CR approach Planner provides CR handout to applicant with permit when ground disturbance is minimized and site is in high to moderate probability area for cultural resources Applicant conducts work Applicant observes cultural material Applicant schedules inspection Inspector conducts site visit If CR materials are observed, inspector implements the ID procedure Applicant notifies RHPO per handout RHPO notifies DAHP and affected Indian tribes Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 11 Over the Counter Permit Inspection Procedures Start Here 1.16 Inspection requested by permit applicant 1.17 Inspector conducts site visit 1.18 Inspector conducts routine inspection 1.19 If cultural materials observed 1.20 Inspector notifies RHPO 1.21 and/or calls 911 if human remains 1.22 RHPO contacts on‐call archaeologist to perform site visit ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 12 Pre‐Application and Single‐Family Existing Lot Feasibility Study Review Some applicants participate in pre‐application (Pre‐App) or single‐family existing lot feasibility study (SFEL) meeting(s) to review a proposed project and discuss studies and documents that may be required during the application review. Using the Cultural Resources (CR) Tracking tool, the RHPO will provide preliminary input as to whether there are cultural resources concerns for proposed projects. Input may be in the form of written comments such as in the project’s issues matrix or provided during participation in the Pre‐App conference or SFEL feasibility study, as requested by the planner. The planner will provide the RHPO’s contact information to applicant(s) for additional information and for coordination with the subsequent CR specialist. The RHPO will review available information on the project to develop the preliminary recommended approach to cultural resources. This approach will be reviewed with the DAHP and affected Indian tribes. Based on their concurrence with or modifications to the RHPO’s analysis, the planner will request or recommend a cultural resources approach or will condition the application to pursue a cultural resources study as part of their due diligence in preparing the development application. Applicants may elect to combine their geotechnical work with archaeological considerations to obtain a timely understanding of cultural resources probability. Factors considered during the review include: Preliminary assessment of probability of encountering cultural resources (per the Analytic Tool and WISAARD) Previous use of the project site and adjacent areas Existing conditions including amount of ground disturbance Proposed construction methods and depth of project‐related ground disturbance, if available Presence of historic‐period resources, and proximity to City of Redmond Landmarks and other known resources Requirements for cultural resources approach from the affected Indian tribes and DAHP ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 13 Pre‐Application and Single‐Family Existing Lot Feasibility Study Review Procedures Start Here Applicant submits Pre‐ Application Form (Applicant may also consult with RHPO in advance) Planning staff enters project into CR Tracking Tool and EnerGov. Planner consults with RHPO and CR Tracking Tool. RHPO reviews analytic tool and WISAARD and notes preliminary recommendation in CR Tracking Tool. RHPO coordinates with DAHP and affected Indian tribes in additioanl consultation with the planner, for review of preliminary recommendation RHPO identifies required and requested approaches to CR based on DAHP and affected Indian tribes review RHPO updates required and requested approaches in CR Tracking Tool and project issues matrix. Planner provides approach at Pre‐App conference/SFEL feasibility study. RHPO may attend Pre‐App conference and SFEL feasibility study as an option. Applicant may consult with RHPO such as regarding use of IDP and other phases of approach ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 14 PREP Process Application Review Some applicants may choose to participate in the Pre Review Entitlement Process (PREP). During this process applicants work with the city staff to produce a code‐compliant application. Project information and required studies are submitted in phases with a corresponding review schedule. If the applicant has not participated in a Pre‐Application review, upon receipt of an application to participate in PREP, the RHPO in consultation with the planner will evaluate the probability of impacting cultural resources and identify the preliminary cultural resource management recommendation. Factors considered during the review include: Probability of encountering cultural resources (per the Analytic Tool and WISAARD) Previous use of the project site and adjacent areas Existing conditions including amount of ground disturbance Proposed construction methods and depth of project‐related ground disturbance, if available Presence of historic‐period resources, and proximity to City of Redmond Landmarks and other known resources Required cultural resources approach from the affected Indian tribes and DAHP • The planning staff and the RHPO will update the CR Tracking Tool and the project issues matrix and inform the applicant of any required activities related to cultural resources management. The applicant will retain a cultural resources consultant(s) meeting the standards for professional qualifications (RCW 27.53.030 and 36 CFR Part 61 When the results of surveys and other studies are received the RHPO will review and provide these documents to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for their standard 30‐day review and comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 15 PREP Process Permit Application Review Procedures Start Here Application received by intake planner Planner enters projects into CR Tracking Tool and EnerGov and notifies the RHPO RHPO reviews survey reports, Analytic Tool, and WISAARD and includes preliminary recommendation in CR Tracking Tool RHPO coordinates with DAHP and affected Indian tribes, if not completed previously RHPO includes CR appoach in CR Tracking Tool and project issues matrix based on DAHP and affected Indian tribes requirements and requests Planner informs applicant of CR requirements and requests & refers applicant to RCW for consultant(s) qualifications Go to CR Report Review ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 16 Formal Application Review Some applicants follow the formal application process or move into the formal application process following a pre‐review option. During this process applicants will continue to work with the city staff in the review of project information and required studies. Applicants that had not participated in a pre‐review option, shall be encouraged to consult with the RHPO and the project planner regarding an evaluation of the probability of project activities impacting cultural resources. The RHPO will identify a preliminary cultural resource management recommendation and consult with the DAHP and affected Indian tribes for concurrence regarding the approach. The RHPO will notify the project planner of the recommended approach. Factors considered during the review include: Probability of encountering cultural resources (per the Analytic Tool and WISAARD) Previous use of the project site and adjacent areas Existing conditions including amount of ground disturbance Proposed construction methods and depth of project‐related ground disturbance, if available Presence of historic‐period resources, and proximity to City of Redmond Landmarks and other known resources Required cultural resources approach from the affected Indian tribes and DAHP • The planning staff and the RHPO will update the CR Tracking Tool and inform the applicant of any required activities related to cultural resources management. Based on conditions applied to project permits, the applicant will retain a cultural resources consultant(s) meeting the standards for professional qualifications (RCW 27.53.030 and 36 CFR Part 61 When the results of surveys and other studies are received the RHPO will review and provide these documents to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for their standard 30‐day review and comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 17 Formal Permit Application Review Procedures Start Here Application received by intake planner Intake planner enters projects into CR Tracking Tool and EnerGov and notifies the RHPO RHPO reviews survey reports, Analytic Tool, and WISAARD and includes preliminary recommendation in CR Tracking Tool RHPO coordinates with DAHP and affected Indian tribes, if not completed previously RHPO includes CR appoach in CR Tracking Tool and notified planner of conditions based on DAHP and affected Indian tribes requirements and requests Planner informs applicant of CR requirements and requests & refers applicant to RCW for consultant(s) qualifications Go to CR Report Review ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 18 Cultural Resources Report Review* If a cultural resources report is required, the planner or the RHPO will store the document in the confidential folder (refer to Protocol for Secure Document Management) and flag EnerGov that the document has been received. Based on the status of the project, the RHPO may also provide an update to the CR Tracking Tool. The RHPO will review the report and update the issues matrix and the CR Tracking Tool, when necessary, with the results of their review. Factors considered in the review include: Project description explains project and potential impacts Quality of research sources Survey adequately covers locations of potential impacts Recommendations for National Register of Historic Places eligibility and effects to resources identified meet National Park Service and DAHP standards. Adequate supporting documentation (Maps and Photographs, Historic Property Inventory Forms, Isolate Forms, Archaeological Site Forms) After working with the CR consultant to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the report, the RHPO will distribute the report to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for their standard 30‐day review. Based on their review, the RHPO will include requirements for monitoring, avoidance, or protective measures to be implemented by the project applicant during construction in the Issues Matrix and CR Tracking Tool. This could also include additional or changed requirements from DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for the CR consultant. The requirements will be noted in the Issues Matrix, CR Tracking Tool, and to the planner. Once the cultural resources survey report is final, the RHPO will update the Analytic Tool with the interim results of the survey. *Additional information regarding Cultural Resources Report requirements are provided in Appendix K: Cultural Resources Reporting Requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 19 Cultural Resources Report Review Procedures Start Here CR Report received by Planner and RHPO, receipt flagged EnerGov (possibly flagged in CR Tracking Tool) CR Report stored in confidential folder RHPO reviews report and completes the checklist RHPO distributes to DAHP and affected Indian tribes RHPO coordinates with DAHP and affected Indian tribes for concurrence or other requirements RHPO updates CR appoach in project issues matrix and when necessary, in CR Tracking Tool RHPO updates Analytic Tool with the interim CR Results Go to Environmental Review ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 20 Cultural Resources Survey Report Review Checklist (Completed by RHPO) 1 Principal Investigator(s) Meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for appropriate disciplines (i.e. archaeology, architectural history) Comments: 2 Project Description Location Construction areas Haul routes Staging areas Depth of ground disturbance Timeline Time of year Hours of construction Equipment proposed Ground disturbing Noise producing Light/ Glare Producing Comments: 3 Regulatory Setting (Circle all that apply) Funding Source: Local State Federal Private ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 21 Permit Required: Local State Federal Comments: 4 Area of Potential Effects or Study Area USGS Map Aerial photograph Includes direct and indirect impacts Comments: 5 Methods Literature Review WISAARD Local Repositories Tribal Sources Tribal Coordination Outreach to the tribes Field studies Pedestrian o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 22 5 Methods Shovel Probes o Sufficient coverage for APE/study area Architectural surveys include visual/auditory impacts Comments: 6 Literature Review Appropriate to scope of the project Variety of sources including primary Covers prehistory, ethnography, historic context Comments: 7 Results General Field methods match the described methods or indicate why the deviation Photographs of general vicinity and survey area Archaeology Photographs of shovel probes Tables with soil profiles Photographs of context and specific conditions at sites (if applicable) Photographs of artifacts (if applicable) Historic Structures ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 23 Photographs of vicinity, landscape, individual structures including outbuildings Statement of significance Relates to specific historic context of the area Physical Description Includes landscape and context Supporting Documentation Isolate Forms Archaeological Site Forms Historic Property Inventory Forms Comments: 8 NRHP Eligibility Evaluations (both archaeology and historic structures) Addresses all 4 criteria Includes consideration for local significance Addresses City of Redmond Heritage Register Comments: 9 Effects No Historic Properties affected Long‐term Short‐term Visual and auditory No Historic Properties affected Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 24 10 Recommendations Options provided for each measure are appropriate to the impact and significance of the eligible resource: Avoidance Minimization Mitigation Other (construction monitoring, use of a specialized Inadvertent Discovery Plan or Treatment Plan) Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 25 Tribal Consultation Checklist (Completed by RHPO) 1 Applicant Name Permit Application Number Point of Contact Anticipated Construction Date Funding Source(s) Comments: 2 Regulatory Context Executive Order 0505 SEPA Section 106 NEPA Redmond Code Other Comments: 3 Location Address Township, Range Section Legal Description Parcel Number(s) Acre(s) Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 26 4 Project Description/ Anticipated Level of Ground Disturbance Comments: 5 Attachments Aerial Imagery Photos Other: 6 Recommendations No potential to cause effects (no resources present, area previously surveyed) Low potential to cause effects (no resources present, low probability area) Potential to cause effects (moderate probability area without previous survey) Insufficient information to reach a recommendation (high probability area without previous survey) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 27 7 Action Recommended Cultural Resources Survey o Phase 1 (literature review) o Phase 2 (field survey with shovel probes) o Phase 3 (testing) Construction Monitoring Custom Treatment or Inadvertent Discovery Plan Tribal Monitoring Other (Training for contractors, architectural monitoring) 8 Sources reviewed (check all that apply) Project Plans Project description Mapped soils Geomorphology Modern land use patterns Historic Maps Historic Aerials DAHP WISAARD DAHP/ Redmond Predictive Model Tribal contacts Redmond Historic Preservation Officer Signature: Date: ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 28 9 For completion by the tribes Please provide further information on the project We have no interest in consulting on the project Please include the tribe in further communications on the project Comments: Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Signature: Date: Environmental Review After an application is submitted, either at the conclusion of the PREP process or upon submittal of a Formal Application, the project will undergo environmental review. The environmental review includes the SEPA process and public comment period required for all major land use applications. When preparing the environmental review documents, the planning staff will coordinate with the RHPO to incorporate the findings of cultural resources survey reports and other studies as the cultural resources report and companion documents will not be attached to the SEPA application due to their disclosure status under RCW 42.56.300. The SEPA determination and associated documents will be provided to DAHP and the affected Indian tribes for review. Additional studies may be requested to address comments from DAHP and the affected Indian tribes, however it is advised that many of these issues are captured during the early reviews required for Pre‐App and the PREP process. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 29 Environmental Review Procedures 1.23 Formal application submitted 1.24 SEPA documentation provided to DAHP and affected Indian tribes 1.25 DAHP and affected Indian tribes request additional information or studies 1.26 RHPO and planning staff request additional studies based upon comments (if necessary) 1.27 Applicant submits responses to requests for additional studies 1.28 Studies deemed complete by COR, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes 1.29 Mitigation incorporated into SEPA determination, permit conditions (if necessary) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 30 Contacts and Resources Name Title Phone Email Kim Dietz Redmond Historic Preservation Officer 425‐556‐2415 [EMAIL REDACTED] Revision Record Revision Number Date Approvals Approved by (Initials) 1 (original) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 31 Appendix F Laws and Regulations List of Federal, State, and County Laws and Regulations Federal National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act 36 CFR Part 60 (National Register of Historic Places) 36 CFR Part 61 (Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs) 36 CFR Part 63 (Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places) 36 CFR Part 65 (National Historic Landmarks Program) 36 CFR Part 68 (The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties) Section 106 Professional Qualification Standards Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment) Executive Order 13006 (Locating federal Facilities in Historic Properties) Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Washington State State Environmental Policy Act Shoreline Management Act Growth Management Act Executive Order 05-05 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (WAC 25-12) Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves (RCW 68.60) Washington State Historic Building Code (RCW 19.27.120) Heritage Barn Program (RCW 27.34.400) State Historical Societies - Historic Preservation (RCW 27.34) Indian Graves and Records (RCW 27.44) Archaeological Sites and Resources (RCW 27.53) Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit (WAC 25-48) Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves (RCW 68.60) Registration of Historic Archaeological Resources on State-Owned Aquatic Lands (WAC 25-46) Aquatic Lands - In General (RCW 79.90.565) Archaeological Site Public Disclosure Exemption (RCW 42.56.300) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 32 Discovery of Human Remains (RCW 27.44) King County King County Landmark Ordinance (Chapter 20.62) Detailed Description of Laws and Regulations Federal National Historic Preservation Act Enacted in 1966, The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) established protections for archaeological and historic resources and created the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is the federal list of archaeological, historic, and other cultural resources worthy of preservation. Resources listed in the NHRP include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American prehistory, architecture, history, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP is maintained and expanded by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. In order for a particular property—a district, site, building, structure, or object—to qualify for the NRHP, it must be significant in American prehistory, history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. To guide the determination of eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Register, the NPS has developed the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60.4). The criteria are standards by which every property, including archaeological sites and historical sites and structures, is evaluated for listing in the NRHP. A quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, or culture is possible in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity and meet one of the following criteria:  Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or  Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources less than 50 years old do not meet the NRHP criteria unless they are of exceptional importance under Criterion Consideration G, as described in the NPS Bulletin No. 22, “How to Evaluate and Nominate Potential National Register Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last 50 Years” (NPS 1998). ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 33 Retaining integrity, including for the prehistorical and historic time periods, means that the property has the ability to “convey its significance” (NPS 1990:44) through its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The NPS provides this guidance on the meaning of the elements of integrity:  Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place.  Design is the composition of elements that constitute the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.  Setting is the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place.  Materials are the physical elements combined in a particular pattern or configuration to form the property during a period in the past.  Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of the craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles.  Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. Although it is itself intangible, feeling is dependent upon the property’s significant physical characteristics that convey its historic qualities.  Association is the direct link between a property and the event or person for which the property is significant. A period appearance or setting is desirable; integrity of setting, location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling combine to convey integrity of association. Bulletin 15 states that in order “to retain historic integrity a property will always possess several and usually most of the aspects” (NPS 1990:44). Properties important under Criteria A or B ideally should retain some features of all seven aspects of integrity. However, integrity of design and workmanship might not be as important as other aspects to demonstrate significance under these criteria and eligibility for the NRHP (NPS 1990:46). Retention of the physical features that demonstrate design, workmanship and materials and characterize its type, period, or method of construction is important to be eligible under Criterion C. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources (resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP). The procedures for complying with Section 106 (36 CFR 800) are issued by the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 36 CFR 800 requires the inventory of cultural resources, determination of NRHP eligibility, assessment of project effects, and consultation with interested parties including the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer) and affected Indian tribes. Projects within the COR that receive funding or require a permit from a federal agency will require compliance with Section 106. The COR may also be a consulting party to a project initiated by ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 34 another party, such as Sound Transit, that occurs within the City limits. Whereby, the COR would review and provide comment to the agency’s approach for cultural resources management. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate impacts to all cultural resources and those prehistoric and historical resources that are eligible for or listed in the NRHP before a project is approved. NEPA states that the policy of the Federal government is to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our heritage. NEPA is implemented through regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500‐ 08). Projects in the COR that may require compliance with NEPA including applications to the USACE for permits under the Clean Water Act or funding from the FHWA to improve roadways. Washington State Chapter 27 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) includes measures for protecting Native American graves and penalties for disturbing these sites (Chapter 27.44). This chapter also describes measures to study and protect archaeological resources (Chapter 27.53). The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) (Title 25) established the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, its functions, and procedures to comply with federal historic preservation program, and authorizes the office to issue archaeological excavation and removal permits. The DAHP also administers the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), an honorary designation for resources of local, state and national significance. Although there are no restrictions on resources with this designation, projects requiring review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), must give properties with this designation, and other cultural resources including NRHP listed properties, consideration for state undertakings. Many projects in the COR will require SEPA review including projects receiving assistance from a state agency and development projects requiring a City land use development permit. Shoreline Management Act The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Shoreline rules (WAC 173‐26‐221) require all Shoreline Master Programs to incorporate provisions to protect historic, archaeological, and cultural features and qualities of shorelines. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Guidelines have provisions that apply to “archaeological and historic resources that are either recorded at the state historic preservation office and/or by local jurisdictions or have been inadvertently uncovered.” SMPs shall:  Include policies and regulations to protect archaeological, cultural, and historic resources.  Require developers and property owners to immediately stop work if resources are uncovered during excavation.  Specify that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 35 State Environmental Policy Act In 1971, the Washington Legislature enacted SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW). The act declared a “state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; and [to] stimulate the health and welfare of human beings; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation. Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to: "Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment;" and Ensure that "...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations...." [RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a) and Under RCW 36.70B.050 all counties and cities are required to develop an integrated project review process that combines both procedural and substantive environmental review to help state and local agencies in Washington identify possible environmental impacts that could result from governmental decisions such as:  Issuing permits for private projects such as an office building, grocery store, or apartment complex.  Constructing public facilities like a new school, highway, or water pipeline.  Adopting regulations, policies, or plans such as a county or city comprehensive plan, critical area ordinance, or state water quality regulation. SEPA applies to all decisions, unless exempt, made by state and local agencies including:  Washington state agencies;  Cities;  Counties;  Ports; and  Special districts such as school and water districts Under SEPA, one government agency is usually identified as the lead agency for every proposal determined not to be exempt from review. The lead agency identifies and evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts of a proposal. In practice:  For most private projects, the lead agency is typically either the city or county where the project is located. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 36  For public projects, the lead agency is normally the agency proposing the project. The SEPA checklist guides agencies through the process of determining potential impacts from a project and evaluating if an Environmental Impact Statement or other review is required. Known archaeological and historic resources, methods to identify these resources, and plans to minimize or mitigate impacts to these resources are identified in question 13 of the SEPA checklist (WAC 197‐11‐960). SEPA Categorical Exemptions Some project types and agency actions have been exempted from the requirements of SEPA by the Legislature. These statutory exemptions are contained in SEPA, Chapter 43.21C of the Revised Code of Washing (RCW). Statutory exemptions contained in the SEPA statute dated November 1, 2003 are listed in Appendix G. Governor’s Executive Order 0505 (GEO 05‐05) Executive Order 0505 was signed into action in November of 2005. This order requires all state agencies with capital improvement projects to integrate DAHP, Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and affected Indian tribes into their capital project planning process. Growth Management Act In 1990, the Washington Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) which established planning goals and a system of planning for cities and counties which had experienced rapid growth. RCW36.70A.070 directs counties to adopt Comprehensive Plans. As a part of the GMA, King County adopted and the cities endorsed Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) which are a series of policies that provide a standard framework to guide each city’s own comprehensive plan, which must be consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County. The CPPs address issues that transcend city boundaries, such as setting Urban Growth Areas, accommodating housing and job demand, and addressing capital facilities that are regional in nature, as well as providing a framework to promote consistency between the plans adopted in each city. Also as part of the GMA, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) which are adopted as part of VISION 2040. The MPPs serve as the regional guidelines and principles used for the Regional Council’s certification of policies and plans. Cities and counties are required to periodically update their plans to comply with updates in regional and state requirements, as well as changes in local conditions. The CPPs identify development patterns as a framework to focus improvements to transportation, public services, the environment, and affordable housing. Development Pattern 41 identifies King County’s policy to “preserve significant historic, archaeological, cultural, artistic, and environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Where appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic community character” (King County 2012). ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 37 King County King County cooperates with the DAHP and is a participant in the Certified Local Government Program. Under the King County Historic Preservation Ordinance (20.62.150), King County will not approve any development proposal that would alter, demolish, or relocate any property listed in the King County Historic Property Inventory (HPI). Coordination with the King County Historic Preservation Officer would occur to establish effects to the resource. A historic property may be designated a King County Landmark (KCL) if it is more than forty years old or, in the case of a landmark district, contains resources that are more than forty years old, and possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history; or 2) Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history; or 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or that represents a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 4) Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history; or 5) Is an outstanding work of a designer or builder who has made a substantial contribution to the art. King County will also designate resources as a community landmark. A community landmark is a resource which has been designated but which may be altered or changed without application for or approval of a certificate of appropriateness. COR established an Interlocal Agreement (4672) whereby the County provides landmark designation and protection services for the City. The agreement between the COR and King County required the city to establish regulations and procedures for the designation of historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and archaeological sites as landmarks. The agreement gives the King County Landmarks Commission (KCLC) the authority to designate and protect landmarks within the COR limits in accordance with the City ordinance. One of the requirements in the City ordinance is that the owner must approve and sign the nomination of a property or structure for proposed landmark designation. The KCLC also acts as the review board for special tax valuations and eligibility for low interest loans, grants, and other incentives administered by King County. Under the agreement the County serves an advisory role and provides consulting services in the review of Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) for City Landmarks (CORLs). The King County Historic Preservation Officer reviews and comments on applications for permits which affect CORLs. City of Redmond COR established regulations and procedures for the protection and designation of archaeological sites and historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites as part of the Redmond Zoning Code (RZC). The objectives of the regulations include meeting the goals of the GMA by preserving ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 38 lands, site, and structures with archaeological or historical significance, providing guidance for land use decisions affecting properties with archaeological significance and designated landmarks, considering the effects on historic properties, and protecting Redmond’s unique community and character.4 The Redmond Zoning Code Title 21 of the Redmond Municipal Code (RMC) provides standards and regulations for development including allowed uses, setback requirements and lot coverage, design standards, parking, landscaping, and other like standards. Historic Preservation is addressed in Section 21.30 Historic and Archaeological Resources which provides direction on what sections of RMC – Title 21 are applicable to archeological sites, designated historic landmarks, and properties that are eligible for historic landmark designation. The RZC (21.30.070) provides for the investigation of archaeological sites to identify recommended excavation and preservation techniques, appropriate mitigation or other treatment, and further needs for evaluation. In areas with known or high probability of containing archaeological artifacts, the COR can require investigations by a qualified archaeologist to prepare a study, identify the boundaries of sites, and recommend mitigation or construction monitoring. 21.30.070.D directs the COR to stop work in the event of an inadvertent discovery and use a qualified archaeologist to investigate and recommend further measures including preservation, excavation, or other appropriate treatment. Such discoveries may occur in Redmond because some portions of the City are relatively developed and development was limited to the surface. For example, many historic‐period houses did not have full basements so materials were preserved below the structure of the residence. Paving for surface parking lots or properties where only limited grading occurred may also protect subsurface layers of cultural materials. 21.030.030 established the Redmond Heritage Resource Register. There are currently 16 properties designated as CORLs under the Redmond Heritage Resource Register. One of these resources, the Redmond Trading Company is designated as a Community Landmark. Nominations to the register require property owner’s consent. The owner may be eligible for incentives through local and regional grants, tax benefits, transfer of development rights, other grants, and loans. RZC 21.20.50 Certificate of Appropriateness provides protection and procedures against the loss of archaeological sites and designated historic landmarks of historic significance. Prior to consideration of a demolition, alternatives will be explored and mitigation, if appropriate, may be required. Property owners wishing to make significant changes to City Landmarks must apply for a COA. There are three levels of COAs for historic landmarks. Level I COAs apply to restorations and repairs using identical materials. Level II COAs apply to additions, replacement of historic materials with alternate materials, or painting that does not match the original color. Level III COAs apply to moving or building an addition to a structure. Level III COAs are also required for filling, grading, 4 The complete list of objectives is available in Section 21.30.010. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 39 excavation, paving or building over or in an archaeological site. The City’s Landmark Commission reviews applications for these changes to ensure that the property maintains its archaeological and historical integrity. Level II and III reviews will also require review by the COR Technical Committee. City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan The COR’s Comprehensive Plan (Plan) provides a broad statement of the community’s vision for the future and contains policies that are intended to guide the built environment as well as aspects of Redmond’s social and economic character. Specifically, the Plan reflects the long‐term values and aspirations of the community and addresses how aspects such as land use, housing, transportation, capital facilities and services, and historic preservation work together to achieve the desired vision. Ultimately, the Plan anticipates how development should be guided over the next 20 years. The Plan is implemented through zoning regulations, functional plans, capital facility improvements, and other implementation measures such as this CRMP. Principles and policies relating to the protection of archaeological resources and other cultural resources are included in several elements of the Plan. The policies relating to Community Character and Historic Preservation are found in Element 5, Community Character and Historic Preservation, supporting historic preservation of archaeological, historic, and other cultural resources. This element provides a series of goals that specifically address: Preservation, Survey and Evaluation, Landmark Nomination, Implementation Measures, and Regional and Community Involvement. Several policies directly support protection of archaeological and other cultural resources including:  Plan policies CC‐42‐43 encourages protection of significant archaeological resources from adverse impacts of development, protection of historic landmarks from demolitions, or modification, and provides for mitigation of adverse effects to archaeological or landmark sites.  Plan policies CC‐32 and CC‐33 addresses the identification of archaeological sites and historic resources as essential steps toward preservation and encourages the COR to conduct ongoing surveys and maintain an inventory to guide planning and decision making.  Plan policies CC‐46‐CC‐49 encourage cooperation, information sharing, and collaboration on the development of education programs and materials with affected Indian tribes, King County, DAHP, and other entities.  Plan policies CC‐40 and CC‐41 encourage the maintenance and preservation of cultural resources through financial incentives, fee reductions, and flexibility within the Zoning Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 40 In addition to protecting the existing character of the shoreline, where many cultural resources are located, the SMP adopted by the COR as part of the Plan provides specific requirements to identify and protect archaeological and historic sites (SF‐12, SL‐83, and SL‐87). The protections include requirements for developers and property owners working in shorelines to:  Identify potential development impacts to and to protect and respect, valuable archaeological and historic sites and cultural resources.  Try to incorporate interpretation of on‐site archaeological and historic resources into the design of shoreline development.  Stop work if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation.  Engage a professional archaeologist to perform a site inspection or evaluation for permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources. The Natural Environment element of the Plan also addresses issues related to sustainability, low‐impact development, and conservation of natural resources that are beneficial in maintaining the setting and character of cultural resources in the area. The policies of the Plan are supported through programs such as the Heritage Grant Program implemented by the Planning Department and also enforced through the Zoning Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 41 Appendix G Exemptions Statutory Exemption (RWC) Section Acquisition of forest lands in stream channel mitigation zones 43.21C.260 Acquisition of conservation easements pertaining to forest lands in riparian zones 43.21C.260 Air operating permits 43.21C.0381 Certain actions under a state of emergency declared by the Governor (also see the emergency exemption in WAC 197‐11‐880) 43.21C.210 City or town incorporation 43.21C.220 City or town annexation of territory 43.21C.222 City or town consolidation or annexation of all of a city/town by another city/town 43.21C.225 City or town disincorporation 43.21C.227 Fish enhancement projects being reviewed under RCW 77.55.290 43.21C.0382 Forest Practices Board emergency rules 43.21C.250 Forest practices Class I, II, and III 43.21C.037 Forest road maintenance and abandonment plans 43.21C.260 House Finance Commission plans 43.21C.230 Personal wireless services facilities (also see WAC 197‐11‐800(25)) 43.21C.0384 School closures 43.21C.038 Secure transition facilities to house sexually violent predators 43.21C.270 Timber harvest schedules involving east‐side clear cuts 43.21C.260 Unfinished nuclear power projects 43.21C.400 Waste discharge permits for existing discharges 43.21C.0383 Water appropriations of 50 cu ft per second or less for irrigation 43.21C.035 Watershed restoration projects implementing a watershed restoration plan that has been reviewed under SEPA 43.21C.0382 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 42 Appendix H Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Regarding Treatment of Adverse Effects to the Bear Creek Site (45KI839), Redmond, King County, Washington and its addendum dated September 29, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 43 Appendix I Cultural Resources Management Recommendations and Standards Standards for Cultural Resources Management The COR is committed to managing cultural resources in a manner that complies with the requirements of Federal and state laws while supporting economic growth and a changing population. These goals are reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and other documents. These plans and policies reflect the three main roles the COR plays in managing cultural resources. The COR directly manages resources on city‐owned property such as the structures at Redmond City Park (Anderson Park) that are listed on the NRHP. The COR uses its financial resources to enhance the quality of life by developing infrastructure and investing in parks and other community resources. Many of these projects result in construction and development that have potential to impact cultural resources located on city land or in/or adjacent to roads and utility right‐of‐ways. The COR also reviews and decides on permit applications for projects and other activities by developers or property owners that have the potential to impact cultural resources such as tree removals and utility trenching. In these roles, the COR is currently using many of the best management practices for protecting cultural resources including commissioning its own surveys, proactively designating important resources as CORLs, and requiring developers to survey properties with a high potential of containing archaeological materials. The following standards relate to management of the cultural resources within the COR. These recommendations are based upon the COR’s existing goals, code, and policies. They are regulated/authorized by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The standards are widely used by agencies throughout the United States and are currently used by the COR in maintaining structures it owns and in approving COAs for changes to CORLs. The standards for management vary by resource type and the most important preservation considerations for those resource types. The greatest potential for damaging archaeological resources comes from ground disturbance. The majority of the COR’s historic landmarks are considered historic structures. Historic structures benefit from the retention of their original architectural features but minimizing changes to the setting from new development is also important. Retaining the natural setting and the spatial relationships between the landscape and structures are important for protecting cultural landscapes. Minimizing disturbance of the natural environment helps protect traditional cultural places by creating an atmosphere suitable for performance and observation of spiritual practices and where traditional resources (bark and wood, berries, roots, and salmon) are available. The management standards also reflect the multiple roles the COR plays in protecting cultural resources. Although the COR can include conditions relating to identifying archaeological and historic structures in its permit applications, some of the standards will be most applicable to ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 44 projects on City property or constructed using City funds. These standards, described and included herein, are adopted by reference to the Redmond Zoning Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 45 Cultural Resources Management Standards  Ensure COR’s compliance with state and federal laws.  Recognize the importance of cultural resources to members of the public and Indian tribes.  Recognize the responsibilities of Indian tribes and agencies to manage and protect cultural resources.  Identify, preserve, and protect NRHP, WHR, and CORL resources.  Coordinate with partner agencies.  If preservation and protection of NRHP, WHR, and CORL resources is impossible, mitigate the adverse effects upon such resources.  Provide for public interpretation and education regarding the cultural resources in the COR.  Partner with other entities and members of the public in acting as a cultural resources steward.  Provide tools and resources to assist owners and developers in protecting and managing resources located on their properties and work sites.  Provide tools and resources for COR staff to ensure their knowledge of cultural resources protection and management techniques. Archaeological resources5  Protect resources consistent with state and federal regulations.  Avoid disturbance to archaeological sites.  Maintain records of archaeological sites and cultural resources surveys within the COR boundaries.  Safeguard the confidentiality of archaeological sites.  Protect known archaeological sites from vandalism.  If avoidance of impacts to archaeological sites is not possible, conduct data recovery.  Develop and require the use of an inadvertent discovery plan (IDP) for COR and private development projects.  Provide training to COR staff and community members to identify and protect archaeological resources.  Require surveys and/or monitoring in areas with a moderate or high probability of containing archaeological resources. 5 Historic period sites are afforded the same protections under NHPA and Washington State law as prehistoric sites. Decisions about the eligibility and treatment of historic archeological sites must be made by a professional archaeologist, DAHP, and the affected tribes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 46  Arrange for and/or require the curation of archaeological resources that cannot be left in‐ situ. Historic Structures Including Landmarked Structures and Structures Over 40 Years of Age. Redmond’s historic preservation program recognizes historic structures that have been designated as landmarked properties in agreement with the respective property owner. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provide the policies and regulations that direct the long‐term maintenance and reuse of these properties, structures, and contributing elements consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The following are standards for preservation of these landmarked structures, an excerpt of the Standards for Treatment that also include standards and guidelines for rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction:  A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.  The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.  Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.  Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.  The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture.  Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.  Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Historic Structures over 40 Years of Age and Not Landmarked At the time of application for proposed modification or redevelopment of historic structures, the RHPO assesses the respective property for preliminary significance. The RHPO works with property owners and developers to consider the effects of the proposed activities on historic ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 47 structures and in some cases, also the property. This consideration, a required element of the SEPA process, could involve requests for site‐specific survey of archaeological and historic resources, particularly when a survey had not been previously undertaken or was undertaken solely at a reconnaissance level. The RHPO provides the modification or redevelopment proposal to the DAHP and affected Indian Tribes for review and concurrence regarding site‐specific requests such as the property owner’s or developer’s use of the DAHP’s non‐professional EZ‐forms for providing additional documentation or the need for a qualified professional in the completion of a Historic Property Inventory form. For properties that have a significant amount of remaining intact integrity of workmanship or other elements that support a property possibly being eligible for listing on a national or local register, the RHPO works with property owners at the owner’s discretion to interpret the possible eligibility and to inform them of opportunities such as landmark designation, property tax benefits, and other preservation support programs. The COR also maintains a historic property inventory in consideration of these standards and in support of the National Historic Preservation Act. Proactive survey of historic resources can enhance community awareness of resources and can provide predictability in addition to cost and time savings for property owners and developers in advance of proposed structural modifications and redevelopment. Traditional Cultural Property/ Places  Coordinate and consult with the Snoqualmie Tribe, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, and the Tulalip Tribes about the identification and treatment of TCPs and areas of cultural significance.  Coordinate and consult with other Indian tribes including the Yakama, Duwamish, and Suquamish who have a traditional interest in the Redmond area about impacts from projects on places of tribal significance.  Maintain regular communication with other affected Indian Tribes in the area to identify areas of cultural significance.  Treatment may include identification of time periods when audible or visible impact should be restricted.  Recognize that the natural setting, including the existing flora and fauna, contribute to the significance and integrity of many TCPs. When TCPs are identified, avoid altering natural features located within their boundaries or that are visible or audible from within the boundaries. Cultural Landscapes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 48  Conduct studies to identify potential cultural landscapes in the COR.  Treatment may include retaining the spatial arrangements between natural features and designed/built features such as structures and grazing areas. Cultural Resources Management Structure and Responsibility The responsibility implementing the CRMP is primarily with the Executive, Parks, Planning, and Public Works departments. Staff in these departments have the responsibility of working collaboratively to ensure the CRMP is used to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. The CRMP is maintained by the Planning department, adopted as reference to the Redmond Zoning Code, with significant guidance and participation from the other key departments. Specific management standards:  Consider potential for impacts to cultural resources early in project approval and budget process for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects.  Proactively review projects for potential impacts to cultural resources.  Implement early review of projects by the Redmond Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO).  Require cultural resources surveys, based on recommended requirements from the DAHP and affected Indian tribes in areas with a moderate or high probability of containing cultural resources.  Facilitate early review and comment on potential impacts from projects and the results of cultural resources surveys by the affected Indian tribes and DAHP.  Implement inspections for private development and COR projects to verify monitoring and other provisions to protect resources approved by DAHP or recommended in the cultural resources report are in place and maintained as necessary for the duration of construction.  Communicate planned maintenance work and other long‐range planning actions with consulting parties.  Notify affected Indian tribes of annual comprehensive plan docket.  Inform consulting parties immediately of inadvertent discoveries and impacts to cultural resources. Personnel Qualifications Although the COR has access to resources at and DAHP, management of the cultural resources within the city limits requires a broad range of technical and professional specialties (archaeology, ethnography, historic architecture, historic preservation, landscape architecture, etc.). The COR will dedicate personnel resources to ensuring the CRMP is employed correctly and that consultation with DAHP and affected Indian tribes occurs for private development projects and CIP or other projects initiated by the City. The COR will seek out the expertise of cultural resources professionals and opportunities for training its staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 49 Specific management standards:  Maintain a staff member serving as the RHPO. At a minimum, the RHPO should have a degree in planning or similar discipline, possess a strong working knowledge of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards regarding cultural resources protection and management, and have attended training from the state or a similar group on cultural resources.  Provide relevant training for the RHPO and other staff responsible for managing/maintaining cultural resources.  Establish a relationship(s), potentially through an on‐call agreement, with a firm(s) with personnel meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in these disciplines to provide guidance, review, or services. COR Employee Training As described in the Bear Creek MOA, a five year training schedule will be implemented to provide training on cultural resources and the CRMP to members of the planning, construction, capital planning, and maintenance and operations groups including as part of respective new hire orientation. In addition to using the training materials developed for the CRMP, the COR will arrange for staff to receive specialized training relevant to their job duties. Specific management standards:  Construction Division Capital Project Managers, CIP Functional Leads, and Parks and Natural Resource Division Maintenance leads will attend the state’s training on cultural resources or a program with similar content.  Key staff managing public and private projects that affect Redmond’s land will attend the Cultural Resources Protection Summit (Summit) or similar training opportunity to better understand tribal concerns and best management practices relating to cultural resources.  COR will develop and maintain a staff attendance schedule for additional training and seminars. Cultural Resources Surveys for Private Development The COR currently issues land use development permits for projects proposed by private property owners and developers. Counter planners receive applications for proposed private development and direct the application to the project planner and RHPO for consultation on the need for surveys. The RHPO, with review and recommendations for requirements from the DAHP and affected Indian tribes, shall require surveys for projects based on site conditions including the probability for locating cultural resources in the project’s areas of effect. The extent of the survey will depend on the anticipated level of ground disturbing activities or other work that has the potential to impact cultural resources. For more details, see the protocol for Survey Requirements and Report Review for Private Development (Appendix E.x) ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 50 Specific management standards:  Establish on‐call relationship with qualified archaeological consultants who can facilitate the process of determining if a survey is required when DAHP is overloaded, when RHPO is uncertain, or if the developer is questioning the need for a cultural resources survey.  Consult with DAHP and the affected Indian tribes to establish specific survey requirements for individual projects in moderate or high probability areas.  Develop list of activities, such as deck construction or limited paving, requiring permits where cultural resources review is not required. Affected Indian Tribes, Agency and Community Consultation Projects in the COR impact many individuals and groups who have a wide variety of perspectives on the best approach to cultural resources management. These groups and individuals provide input to the COR through a variety of programs and processes. For more details, see the Agency and Tribal Coordination protocol (Appendix E.x). The signatories to the MOA including the DAHP, USACE, and the WSDOT will continue to be important partners for reviewing potential impacts to cultural resources. The COR will continue to maintain communication with these groups as well as the Indian tribes who were signatories to the MOA including Snoqualmie Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, and Tulalip Tribes. The COR will also continue to seek input from other Indian tribes who may have used the area as well as private developers, residents, and business owners on the effectiveness of the CRMP and for some, but not all, projects requiring permits or approval by the City. The COR may also participate as a consulting party on projects where another agency is the lead. For these projects the COR will follow that agency's designated consultation process. For example, if Sound Transit is developing a rail station in the COR boundaries, the COR will likely be invited to participate as a consulting party under Section 106 of the NHPA. The FTA will be lead federal agency and may delegate some of its consulting responsibilities to Sound Transit. The COR will provide input and participate in processes as invited by Sound Transit/FTA. During the private development application process, the RHPO shall reach out to DAHP and the Snoqualmie Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, and Tulalip Tribes for input on the cultural resources management approach including whether a survey should be required for private or COR developed project. Through the SEPA process additional parties including other affected Indian tribes will be contacted for their feedback on projects (Appendix The Natural Resources Division, Transportation Planning and Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Planning and Administration Division also conduct outreach to affected Indian tribes and agencies for their work. This outreach will be coordinated with the RHPO to ensure consistency of procedures and requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 51 Specific management standards:  Continue to hold regular meetings with MOA signatories.  Coordinate consultation and outreach through the RHPO.  Develop a list of projects that are exempt from consultation.  Provide the list of exempt work to consulting parties. Information Management The COR maintains a variety of information on cultural resources within its boundary including information on the designations for CORLs, historic maps and archival materials, and reports on cultural resources for COR funded and private development projects. Cultural resources reports are considered confidential and the information in the reports will be held in secure locations with limited access. Permissions and maintenance for confidential documents are discussed in more detail in the Secure Document Management protocol (Appendix E.x).Distribution of information relating to archaeological sites contained in the cultural resources reports will be limited to cultural resources professionals meeting the appropriate qualifications, the owner of the parcel, and consulting agencies and tribes. Periodically the COR receives requests for information from members of the public on resources within the boundary. Under RCW 42.56.300, information on archaeological sites is exempt from public disclosure. The COR may distribute redacted copies of reports to members of the public or direct property owners to DAHP to obtain details of archaeological and cultural resources on their property. The RHPO has access to the WISAARD system and is able to locate information in this system on previously recorded cultural resources. The COR uses GIS‐based tools including software called EnerGov to review development applications. EnerGov has limited information on previously recorded historic structures in the city and does not directly provide the age of existing structures on the parcel. Staff who are more familiar with cultural resource requirements use the King County IMAP system to determine the building’s date of original construction. The RHPO also uses maps and information on streams, utilities, etc. as well as IMAP and WISAARD to locate information on areas with a high probability of containing archaeological sites. The COR and the DAHP entered into an agreement to share data relating to archaeological and other cultural resources (Appendix This information is used in the GIS‐based Analytic tool developed as part of this project. The COR staff will use the GIS‐based Analytic Tool with layers for identifying areas with a high potential for archaeological and cultural resources. The Analytic Tool will be available to all staff who have participated in the CRMP training. More information on this tool is provided in Section 5.1 and Appendix D. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 52 Specific management standards:  Maintain and update as needed the data‐sharing agreement with DAHP to obtain and provide information on cultural resources within the COR boundary.  Maintain information related to archaeological sites and areas sensitive to the affected Indian tribes on secure servers within the COR with limited access.  Mark correspondence relating to archaeological sites and investigations confidential.  Redact information from cultural resources reports prior to public distribution.  Implement training on the Analytic Tool.  Make regular updates to the Analytic Tool (See CRMP Revision and Analytic Tool Procedures).  Continue to reach out to the affected Indian tribes to share information and where appropriate, incorporate into the Analytic Tool. Curation The context and setting of a resource is important to its preservation. Whenever possible, cultural resources identified in the COR boundaries shall be left in‐situ. If artifacts are identified as part of a project, curation is discussed with the appropriate affected Indian tribe and local historical societies. For private development projects, the developer will continue to be responsible for any required curation. Curation of historic artifacts is a decision made during discovery and site analysis when the archaeologist, DAHP, and others can evaluate the significance of the site, the quality of the artifacts in relationship to the site, and the value of the artifacts for further study. Curation will be determined on a case by case basis with DAHP and the affected tribes based upon the significance of the site and the resources. If the site is not determined eligible for the NRHP or WHR, curation is typically not required. Artifact curation is discussed in the Construction Monitoring protocol (Appendix E.x) but may also apply in other cultural resource management contexts (including agency Tribal coordination, or CIP planning and budgeting, Appendices E.x, E,x, and E.x, respectively) Specific management standards:  The City will enter into a curation agreement with a repository or repositories, such as a Tribally‐owned repository and/or the Burke Museum, which meets the standard of 36 CFR 79, for curation of materials other than human remains. The COR will discuss this issue with the signatories to the MOA and select an appropriate repository based upon their input and the availability of repositories to receive materials.  The curation agreement should be available for all COR projects. In the event that a project will require curation of a large collection, the COR may wish to establish an agreement for that individual project.  The City will work with local historical groups and other applicable groups to identify locations to display or store historic period artifacts that may not warrant curation at the Burke or other repositories. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 53  The City will include conditions on permits and special provisions in contractor specifications that, when appropriate, require the developer to follow the IDP and provide materials to a repository meeting the standard of 36 Code of Federal Regulations 79.  The City’s curation agreement and any contractor provisions should allow developers or individual property owners to curate artifacts under the COR agreement. In such cases, the costs of curation and artifact preparations will be the responsibility of the developer. Public Education and Interpretation The COR has an active program of education related to cultural resources. The website provides information on the history of the area and known cultural resources. The COR sponsors programs on Redmond’s history throughout the year including events for Archaeology Month and Historic Preservation Month. The Bear Creek discovery and resulting agreement led to a collaboration with the affected Indian tribes to incorporate artwork at the Bear Creek site and develop educational material on local cultural resources for use in the schools. Area parks have interpretive signs and information on historic structures and other cultural resources located in the park. The COR plans to continue to create and sponsor periodic public education and interpretation programs for the benefit of the community. Specific management standards:  Coordinate with the affected Indian tribes to plan and sponsor community and educational programs.  Highlight the artistic traditions of the affected Indian tribes by commissioning works for display at COR properties.  Work with Eastside Historical Society and the Redmond Historical Society to sponsor programs.  Use COR properties with historic structures as venues for city activities to highlight Redmond’s heritage.  Collaborate with the Arts & Culture Commission, developers and COR project managers to commission works or otherwise encourage use of the 1% for Arts Program, Arts Program Activity Fund and other funds for artistic projects that incorporate themes relating to the history and heritage of the Redmond area including the art and traditions of Native culture. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 54 Appendix J Cultural Resources Management Plan Review and Revisions Review and Revision Periodic review and amendment of the implementing protocols outlined in the CRMP and tools used to comply with them are essential to ensure all cultural resources regulations, restrictions, and policies are updated and revised as appropriate. Internal review of criteria requiring cultural resources survey, training protocols, consulting parties, Tribal contacts and other data will be conducted annually for the first three years following the adoption of the CRMP. After three years COR will coordinate with DAHP and the affected Indian tribes to establish the frequency of reviews for the CRMP. Updates to procedural aspects (such as exempt maintenance activities) are discussed under their respective headings. A review and update schedule is provided in Table 6‐1. CRMP Qualitative Review The CRMP provides COR with the tools to effectively plan for and consider cultural resources in its project planning and permitting processes and is designed to be regularly updated and refined. Review of the CRMP and associated tools and policies is intended to assess the effectiveness and implementation of the plan, including evaluation of the utility of existing management, and the identification of management/protocol gaps. Qualitative review of the core cultural resources policies and procedures will be undertaken in consultation with affected Indian tribes and DAHP every three years. This review will rely partly on changes to statutes, regulations and policies and partly on the results, comments, and reporting of protocol implementation. Project completion debriefing documents produced by the RHPO will be a primary source of data for the CRMP review. These documents are compiled from documentation of cultural resources consultations, planning documents, and agreements compiled over the course of each project. Zoning Code COR planning staff conduct periodic reviews of the Zoning Code in response to changing conditions in the city or questions resulting from code administration. Updates to sections of the Zoning Code pertaining to cultural resources including archaeological sites and CORLs will be reviewed internally and discussed with community members including developers, architects, property owners, and affected Indian tribes. As part of the annual CRMP review process, the RHPO and other planning staff will discuss the Zoning Code requirements related to cultural resources including common issues and questions that arose during the permitting or inspection process to identify areas where the code language should be modified to clarify procedures. Proposed amendments will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and to the City Council for review and decision. Table 6‐1 provides the timeline for updates to CRMP features. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 55 Table Appendix J‐1: CRMP Update Schedule CRMP Element Participants Timeframe Review and update cultural resources sites, surveys and published reports in the Analytic Tool COR Internal Ongoing Update Analytic Tool with new data from DAHP COR Internal, DAHP Annually Review and conduct/commission surveys to update Historic Building Inventory COR Internal Every 10 years Review and update list of standard consulting partners and contact info, including state and tribal authorities COR Internal Ongoing, minimum Annually Review and update COR and Tribal and Stakeholder coordination tables COR Internal Annually, or As Needed Review and update list of activities that require or are excluded from cultural resources review COR, affected Indian tribes, DAHP Annually for 3 years * Review criteria by which cultural resources actions are recommended for projects COR Internal Annually for 3 years * Review and update training protocol COR Internal Annually for 3 years* Review changes to federal and state regulatory requirements, private development requirements for potential code updates COR Internal, affected Indian tribes, DAHP, and Stakeholders Annually Review of Standards and Procedures COR, affected Indian tribes, DAHP, and Stakeholders Every Three Years *Timeframe for future review schedule will be updated after 3 years based upon internal feedback and discussion about the process with DAHP and affected Indian tribes ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 56 GIS Analytic Tool Update Procedures The Analytic Tool will be updated through two mechanisms. The RHPO receives cultural resources reports with the results of surveys that are not currently included in WISAARD. These will be added to a layer within the Analytic Tool by the RHPO when the final cultural resources report is received from the consultant. The update will be reflected in the cultural resource probability maps accordingly. Other layers will be updated by the COR GIS team. Table 6‐2 shows the GIS database layers and recommended update schedule. Table Appendix J‐2: Data Layers and Frequency of Updates Data Layer Frequency Other verification or processing Interim CR Survey Data When received by the RHPO RHPO verification cultural resources survey report is final DAHP Data Annually Review/coding of archaeological survey data by qualified archaeologist King County Assessor Data (building construction date) Annually City of Redmond Boundary Layers When updated by COR Historic Roads When updated by COR COR Historic Structures Surveys Every 10 years or more frequently when updated by COR King County Probability Maps When updated by King County ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 57 Appendix K Cultural Resources Reporting Requirements Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting The standards for reporting regarding cultural resources are established and updated annually by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The outline presented in the Washington State Standards indicates the organizational format of a professional archaeological resource survey report. It contains the information needed by governmental agencies, DAHP staff, property owners, planners, Tribes, and interested parties to make informed decisions. The report must be completed, reviewed, and approved by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. For additional information and detailed formatting and content requirements, refer to the DAHP at (360) 586‐3065 or The following information is required to be submitted for sites identified as having moderate to high probability for containing cultural resources or when required by the preliminary cultural resources assessment: A. General Information (required for all cultural resources). 1. Name of proposal as shown on City applications. 2. Name of applicant as shown on City applications. 3. Name of organization and individual providing this information. 4. Name and contact information for the professional archaeologist, per RCW 27.53.030(11), providing this information. 5. Date the information was prepared. 6. Clearly identify the development proposal being addressed, including City file number and key project drawing references, as necessary (originator of drawings, originator’s reference number if shown on the drawings, sheet numbers, revision numbers and dates for each sheet, and include reduced copies of key drawings in the report). 7. A copy of an aerial photo with overlays displaying site boundaries and area of potential effects (APE). 8. Additional information may be required. The Technical Committee, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, or affected Indian tribes may require additional information to be included when deemed necessary to the review of the proposed activity. B. Cultural Resources ‐ Archaeology Reporting Requirements. A cultural resources report shall be prepared by a professional archaeologist who meets the requirements identified by RCW ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 58 27.53.030(11) and shall meet the requirements of a Cultural Resources report as defined and amended by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 1. Cultural Resources Report Requirements (in addition to the General Information listed in Appendix 4.A above) to be provided to the administrator as pdf of final drafts: a. A Cultural Resources Cover Sheet consistent with formatting established by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. b. A site map showing all proposed ground disturbances including the following: i. Filling, grading, compacting, blasting, boring, tunneling, or any form of earthwork or disturbance; or ii. Excavating or mining; or iii. Excavation of artifacts; or iv. Paving or otherwise covering of the earth surface with such materials as concrete; or v. Planting or farming; or vi. Demolishing or erecting a structure; or vii. Any other activity that may harm or disturb a site. c. A cultural resources survey report consistent with the Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Reporting. d. Appropriate Archaeological Site Forms. e. National Register forms used for Determination of Eligibility of Archaeological sites (as needed) f. Letters submitted to the following affected Indian tribes as consultation and responses thereof. i. Snoqualmie Tribe. ii. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. iii. Tulalip Tribes. iv. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. g. Letters submitted to the following interested Indian tribes as communication and responses thereof. i. Suquamish Tribe. ii. Duwamish Tribe. iii. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 59 h. Additional records demonstrating area and depth of previous ground disturbances, if available. C. Reconnaissance Historic Structures Reporting Requirements. An reconnaissance historic structures report may be prepared by the applicant or a professional who meets the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and shall meet the minimum requirements of WA State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting – Reconnaissance Level Survey as defined and amended by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 1. Reconnaissance Historic Structures Survey Requirements (in addition to the General Information listed in Appendix 4.A above) to be provided to the administrator as pdf of final drafts: a. The historic and current use of the structure(s). b. A detailed description of the structure(s) including all observable architectural features. c. An evaluation of the structure’s integrity such as cladding, foundation, roof shape, architectural form/type and style based on its original construction including the following: i. Identifying features and characteristics that appear to have been maintained from the original construction. ii. Identifying features and characteristics that appear to have been modified from the original construction. iii. Identifying features and characteristics that appear to have been replaced from the original construction. d. A concise Statement of Significance based on the knowledge of the professional, if available. e. An approximate date of the original construction as obtained from the best available resources. f. A photographic inventory of the structure(s) meeting the requirements of Appendix 4.E below. D. Intensive Historic Structures Reporting Requirements. An intensive historic structures report shall be prepared by a professional who meets the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Architectural Historian and shall meet the requirements of WA State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting – Intensive Level Survey as defined and amended by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 60 1. Intensive Historic Structures Survey Requirements (in addition to the General Information listed in Appendix 4.A and Reconnaissance Historic Structures Reporting Requirements listed in Appendix 4.C above) to be provided to the administrator as pdf of final drafts: a. An accurate date of construction based on research. b. Historic images, if available. c. The name of the original architect or building, if available. d. A bibliography. e. A determination of National Register eligibility by a cultural resources professional. f. Ownership information including original owner or claimant of property and of structure. g. Historic or common name of the property. h. Area of Significant/Historic Context. i. A thorough, in‐depth statement of significance based on integrity and National Register Criteria for Evaluation. E. Photographic Inventory of Historic Structures Reporting Requirements. A photographic inventory of historic structures shall be prepared. 1. Photographic Inventory of Historic Structures Requirements (in addition to the General Information listed in Appendix 4.A above) to be provided to the administrator: a. Photographs must be taken and provided at the highest resolution possible to ensure clarity of details. b. A scale device should be included in specific views to show the size of the object recorded, particularly in documentation of the main façade of a building. c. The direction, such as the cardinal point from which the view was taken or the direction a building is facing, should be noted in an accompanying Index to Photographs. d. The photographic inventory shall include the following: iv. General or environmental view(s) to illustrate setting, including landscaping, adjacent building(s), and roadways. v. All façades, with and without a scale device. vi. Perspective view, front and one side. vii. Perspective view, rear and opposing side. viii. Detail, front entrance and/or typical doorway. ix. Typical window. ---PAGE BREAK--- City Of Redmond Cultural Resources Management Plan 61 x. Exterior details, such as chimney, clerestory, oriel, date stone, gingerbread ornamentation, or boot scrape, indicative of era of construction or of historic and architectural interest. xi. Interior views to capture spatial relationships, structural evidence, a typical room, and any decorative elements; these include hallways, stairways, attic and basement framing, fireplaces and mantels, moldings, interior shutters, kitchen (especially if original), and mechanicals. xii. If they exist, at least one view of any dependency structures, such as privies, milk or ice houses, carriage houses, sheds, detached garages, or barns. These structures need to be identified in the Index to Photographs. Related Forms:  Forms shall be obtained from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation