5900 36TH AVE W SEPA 015 - 034 - SOUNDVIEW BUSINESS CAMPUS - VERITAS Land Use Decision Documents 2025-04-22

RESEARCH DESIGN DAHPArchaeological Predictive Model The predictive model map overlay indicates that the project is within an area identified as "Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Low Risk" and "Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Moderately Low Risk". ' Model probabilities are calculated using information from two general sources —data derived from archaeological surveys conducted prior to model development, and a consideration of the ' relationship between these recorded sites and various environmental factors (Kauhi 2009). The approach to modeling settlement systems used by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) presumes that the distribution of archaeological sites on the landscape is non-random and that there is a statistically significant relationship between physical landscape features (e.g., elevation, distance to water, soils, and landform type) and site location. Any predictive model can only be as accurate as the information derived from the set of previously recorded sites used to create it, which means any site identification biases represented in research will also be present in the model. Additionally, because this type of model uses an inductive approach, it is also limited in its ability to characterize the type of site that might be encountered in a ' particular setting, since, by design, the causal relationship between identified archaeological sites and particular geographic settings is not considered. More simply put, the predictive model "recognizes" that a given number of archaeological sites have been recorded within a specific distance from a ' given geographic features, and it therefore "rates" projects undertaken on a specific landscape as having a high or low risk to encounter archaeological deposits without providing a distinction between historic and precontact sites or between archeological isolates and village sites. This should not be viewed as a failure of the model so much as a function of the model. As noted on the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT 2013) Archaeological Predictive Model ' webpage: The dependability of these models is a function of their performance. This can be ' examined and tested by comparing a predictive model to archaeological field survey results. By comparing known archaeological site locations to the model's predictions, it is possible to determine, with specifiable confidence, how accurately a model performs. It is, in fact, this very approach that gives us confidence in a model and allows us to use it as a predictive tool. Field-testing a model is an essential component of demonstrating its reliability. In this report, the author presents a project assessment that considers the implications of the predictive model but is also informed by an understanding of the geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post -depositional processes derived from a review of available environmental documentation and reports of nearby cultural resource surveys (Bush 2013; Piper et al. 2012; White 2008) and surveys conducted on similar landforms (Berger 2009; Landreau and Geffen 2003; Kenmotsu 2008; Rinck and Boggs 2010; Robinson 2004). This deductive approach is designed to not only more accurately characterize the potential for a given project to encounter Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-077 15