Amendment 2 - Bok Kai Temple Historic Structure Impact Report.2013.pdf

BOK KAI TEMPLE

Historic Structure Impact Report

Prepared for HDR, Inc.

Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc 30 January 2013 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1 A.1 Recommendations A.2 Summary

1. Introduction 6

1.1 MRL Project Summary

1.2 Historic Preservation Objectives and Requirements

1.3 Overview of Previous Studies

1.4 Impact Report Goals and Methodology

2. Historical Context and Significance 14

2.1 History

2.2 Chronology of Development and Use

2.3 Historical Significance and Status

3. Physical Description and Existing Conditions 21

3.1 General Description and Character Defining Features

3.2 Exterior Conditions and Description

3.3 Interior Conditions and Description

3.4 Structural Conditions and Description

4. Vibrations Parameters 28

4.1 Literature Review

4.2 Site Specific Conditions

4.3 Analysis and Anticipated Impacts

5. Recommendations 41

5.1 Pre-Construction

5.2 During Construction

5.3 Post-Construction

5.4 Mitigations

6. Summary 52

7. Bibliography 53

7.1 References Cited

7.2 References Consulted

8. Professional Qualifications 58

Appendix A: 2002 HSR ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. The project APE. The APE follows the physical extent of the levee around Marysville. Areas of anticipated staging are also included where the APE extends beyond the immediate levee confines.

Figure 2. Bok Kai Temple, c.1880. This image shows the temple shortly after its reached its current form. Note the different colors of the east and west wings and the detail in the wood frieze panel between the porch columns. (Image courtesy of the Bok Kai Temple website.).

Figure 3. Bok Kai Temple, 2011. This is a current image of the Bok Kai Temple as viewed from the top of the levee. The roof has been returned to its original shingled appearance after many years covered in inappropriate clay tile. (Photo by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.)

Figure 4. Bok Kai Temple and surrounding area. The temple faces the levee and is accessible, by foot, via the neighboring park. (Aerial image taken from Google Maps.)

Figure 5. Horizontal crack in barrel vault. Even though the roof was repaired and strengthened in 2006, horizontal cracking in the small barrel vaulted section is ongoing. (Photo by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 2011.)

Figure 6. Crack in the new wall paneling. This crack is above the door to the Fortune Teller’s Room. The condition of the underlying brick wall could not be surveyed. (Photo by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 2011.)

Figure 7. Moisture staining in the Gambler’s Room. This area is near a roof drain that was improperly functioning. The area has since been repaired, but the damage is evident. (Photo by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 2011.)

Figure 8. Poor pony wall condition. The northeast corner of the Temple is wood frame on a brick pony wall. The framing and the masonry wall are in poor condition. This image shows one area of extreme damage where severe settlement has occurred. (Photo by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., 2011.)

Figure 9a. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Values referred to are at the base of the building. For line 2, at frequencies below 4 Hz, a maximum displacement of 0.6 mm (0.02 in) [zero to peak)] is not to be exceeded.

iii

Figure 9b. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage for the current BS 5228-2 (2009). This diagram was originally developed for BS 7385-2 (1993) and was included in BS 5228-2 in 2009. Cosmetic damage is defined as creation of hairline cracks. The accompanying text indicates that minor damage is possible at vibration levels twice that shown, and major damage can occur at four times the listed values. For continuous vibrations, the guide values might need to be reduced by half. Important buildings that may be difficult to repair might require special consideration on a case-by-case basis. A historical building should not be assumed to be more sensitive unless it is structurally unsound. BS 7385-2 notes that the probability of [cosmetic] damage tends towards zero at 12.5 mm/s (0.49 in/s) PPV.

Figure 10. Figure B-1 from Siskind, et al (1980). This shows their vibration limits for safe blasting near homes (transient vibrations). This diagram was not to be used for continuous vibrations.

Figure 11. Limiting sustained peak particle velocities. Limits as applied by the City of New Orleans based on studies of preconstruction vibrations and conditions at the LSU Medical Center in New Orleans.

Figure 12. Swiss Association of Standardization vibration damage criteria. 33

Figure 13. Whiffen Vibration Criteria for Continuous Vibration 33

Figure 14. Siskind Vibration Damage Thresholds 34

Figure 15. Caltrans vibrations threshold recommendations for various types and conditions of buildings. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Figure 16. Guideline values for vibration velocity to be used when evaluating the effects of short-term vibration on structures, DIN 4150-3 vibration recommendations, 1999. In Section 5.1, of DIN 4150-3 (1999) v i,max is defined as the maximum absolute value of the velocity signal for the three components (x, y, or z) measured on the building foundation.

This parameter is referred to as Vi . This is not a vector sum value.

Measurements can also be made on the highest floor of a building. In this case, the highest of the two horizontal components shall be used.

This value is also referred to as Vi . Note that the guideline values are frequency dependent if vibrations at foundation level are measured, and not frequency dependent if vibrations are measured on the top floor.

iv

Figure 17. Curves for guideline values specified in Figure 16 for velocities measured at the foundation DIN 4150-3 vibration recommendations, 1999.

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A variety of reports, studies, and theoretical projections of the impacts of construction-related vibrations on buildings are available for consideration when analyzing potential project impacts. Using the Caltrans Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual and other previously prepared MRL reports and analyses, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds that the anticipated vibrations projections of 0.05 – 0.13 in/sec PPV as measured at 40-feet from vibration sources are within the industry thresholds for vibrations limits near historic or fragile structures. This anticipated PPV is also below the levels generally required to cause aesthetic or structural harm to historic or fragile buildings. Therefore, there is very low probability for aesthetic or structural damage to either the Bok Kai Temple or nearby contributors to the Marysville Downtown Historic District. Using a conservative approach, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. recommends that the lower vibration threshold presented by Caltrans of 0.08 in/sec PPV be used as the vibrations threshold for the MRL Phase 2b project. This represents the maximum recommended vibration as measured by monitoring equipment. Recommended placement of monitors range from approximately 35-feet from construction (south foundation wall of the Temple) to approximately 90-feet (within the property line of 7 D Street).

A.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

A.1.1 Pre-Construction

Establishing Baseline Vibrations Conditions Ambient vibrations conditions should be collected immediately prior to the start of construction. This should be compared to the empirical construction-related data gathered at the Phase 1 construction-site (0.01 – 0.04 in/sec typically) and the anticipated vibrations from construction along Phase 2b (0.05 – 0.13 in/sec). If ambient vibrations exceed the actual and anticipated construction-related vibrations level, the likelihood of damage from future construction is quite low. If ambient vibrations are lower than anticipated construction-related vibrations, greater sensitivity to changing building conditions, such as plaster cracking, chipping, or flaking, building movement or settlement, cracked interior floor or wallboard, falling object, or loosening attachments, may be warranted.

Establishing Baseline Building Conditions Understanding the difference between current conditions and those anticipated during and after construction is critical for buildings with the cultural and historic value of the Bok Kai Temple. Therefore, a solid understanding of baseline conditions, with supporting documentation for reference, is recommend. Specific recommended actions include:

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry Data gathering is relatively fast (1-2 days at most) and cost effective. Processing of the data may be contingent on the need. If no changes are observed and no construction-related vibrations events exceed the recommended thresholds, it may not be necessary to process and analyze the point-cloud information gathered on-site. This could be a cost savings.

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs As an alternate to laser scanning, thorough recordation of all surfaces with a digital camera can be used to establish a visible baseline of conditions. This method requires 1-2 days in the field and has minimal processing time. It is not as accurate as laser scanning, but is highly superior to regular photographic documentation.

• Pre-construction mural survey A detailed conditions survey of the murals should be completed by a qualified murals conservator to record existing conditions. Conditions should be recorded on drawings or high-resolution photographs and accompanied by a brief written report summarizing the findings and highlighting any potential problem areas discovered during the survey process.

• Pre-construction level survey A level survey of the floor in the altar room and western storage room is recommended to establish a baseline for existing levels of settlement for the building. These floors are relatively uniform and a laser level survey can be performed with minimal disruption of existing decorative features.

• Installation of crack monitors Inexpensive and effective, crack monitors can be installed in sensitive locations with no impact on the historic resource. They will require regular on-site monitoring.

• Pre-construction non-destructive wall survey (optional) An ultrasonic, or other non-destructive survey of the sanctuary walls can be done prior to construction to more precisely know the conditions of the underlying brick walls.

Public Outreach & Education Anticipated vibrations levels are quite low, but they are within the range detectible by humans.

Therefore, education of the public is highly recommended. This is especially important because access to private property will be necessary if vibrations monitors are installed as recommended. Specific recommendations include:

• Public notification letters to residents, owners, and business proprietors within 200-feet of the construction zone, and along all proposed haul routes.

• Public meetings with dissemination of any presentations, questions, and answers following each meeting.

• Dissemination of educational materials concerning specific steps owners or tenants can take to limit incidental impacts such as falling objects or dislodging of poorly mounted materials on walls, ceilings, or shelving.

A.1.2 During Construction

Because anticipated vibrations are quite low, no pre-construction stabilization is recommended for the Temple. However the following steps to monitor the historic resource for changes during construction are recommended:

Implementation of a Vibrations Monitoring Plan

• Install a minimum of two (2) monitoring units at the Bok Kai Temple site. One should be located under the temple, in the crawl space below the main entrance and placed near the south wall. The other should be located outside the Temple, near the north wall. This will require owner’s permission and may pose an access issue.

• Select a qualified monitoring professional with certified equipment and trained personnel.

• Equipment should allow for remote monitoring and should generate immediate notification to responsible parties when the recommended vibrations threshold of 0.08 in/sec has been exceeded.

• Cease all construction within 200-feet of the resource when the threshold has been exceeded and visually inspect the Temple for damage.

• Establish a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to collect data and check equipment.

Regular Visual Inspections All remote monitoring should be augmented by routine visual inspections of the Temple. The exterior murals should be inspected on a daily basis, at a set time, either before or after each shift. This is a quick visual survey of focused areas where the most sensitive historical resources are located. The entire Temple should be inspected on a weekly basis. A standard methodology, perhaps a checklist, should be developed to guide these inspections and provide for consistency across the project’s duration.

Equipment Protections Install barricades to prevent errant material or equipment from rolling off the levee and into the Temple or onto the Temple site.

Dust & Debris Control Barriers to prevent debris from striking the building should be put in place prior to the start of construction. In addition, a dust mitigation plan should be created to limit dissemination of airborne particles into interior spaces of the Temple.

A.1.3 Post-Construction

Affirming Building Conditions Understanding the difference between pre-construction conditions and those existing after construction is critical for sensitive historic resources like the Bok Kai Temple. Therefore, a comparison of conditions, with supporting documentation for reference is recommend.

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry This cost effective method can be used to directly compare the data collected prior to construction with that present at the close of construction. Any differences in the information would indicate deterioration that has occurred since the start of construction. A determination of the causes of the damage, and whether it is the result of natural occurrences or of construction activities would then be necessary. This is recommended as a way to document conditions in case there is any disputed damage in the future.

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs

As an alternate to laser scanning, thorough recordation of all surfaces with a digital camera can be used to establish a visible baseline of conditions. This method requires 1-2 days in the field and has minimal processing time. It is not as accurate as laser scanning, but is highly superior to regular photographic documentation.

• Post-Construction Floor Level Survey At the end of construction, or after construction has been completed within 200-feet of the Temple, a second floor level survey is recommended. This should be compared to the pre-construction survey results to determine if any additional settlement may have occurred as a result of construction activities.

• Post-construction mural survey

A detailed conditions survey of the murals should be completed by a qualified murals conservator to record existing conditions. Changed conditions should be recorded on copies of the pre-construction survey and accompanied by a brief written report highlighting any changed conditions with specific recommendations to address any construction-related damage.

A.1.4 Mitigations

Plaster Damage If damage to the exterior murals is observed, the following procedure should be followed immediately.

• Suspend all construction within 200-feet of the resource immediately.

• Install netting immediately below the murals to prevent loose material from hitting the ground.

• Contact a skilled murals conservator, preferable one familiar with the murals and the work carried out in 2006. At a minimum, the selected conservator should be a member of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC), have at least 10 years experience working on exterior murals, frescos, and/or plaster-based cultural media.

• Temporarily stabilize the murals until all construction activities along the K1, K2, and L1 segments are complete. Do not resume construction until the murals have been stabilized.

• Permanently stabilize the murals according to the recommendations of the murals conservator.

Fallen or Loose Artifacts If artifacts become dislodged from the interior of the Temple because of construction-related activities, the following procedure should be followed immediately:

• Suspend all construction within 200-feet of the resource immediately.

• Contact a representative from the Bok Kai Temple to document the damaged items.

• Remove the item for assessment and repair offsite. The item should be properly packaged to prevent further damage.

• Survey the remaining attachments for stability. Construction can resume after the damaged item has been removed from the site and wall and ceiling attachments have been verified.

• A skilled artisan familiar with sacred objects, or with the specific materials in question, is recommended to advise on actions needed to restore the damaged item.

• Repair any damage to the wall or ceiling where attachments dislodged.

• Reinstall repaired item only after all construction activities along the K1, K2, and L1 segments are complete.

A.2 SUMMARY

There are very few anticipated impacts on the Bok Kai Temple as a result of construction-related vibrations. Vibration will occur at levels detectable by humans but should remain well below the levels generally required to cause aesthetic damage. Structural damage is highly unlikely based on the current analysis. Pre-construction stabilization activities include recording baseline vibrations conditions, establishing baseline building conditions, and verification of vibrations generated by the proposed construction methods and equipment at the site. Provided the baseline assumptions of this report are supportable by pre-construction stabilization activities, vibrations levels remain under the recommended threshold of 0.08 in/sec, and the project is properly monitored to verify that levels remain below this threshold, impacts to the temple are unlikely.

1. INTRODUCTION

The city of Marysville is located approximately 50 miles north of Sacramento, California in Yuba County. Marysville is surrounded by 7.5 miles of levee that protect it from the flooding of three water courses: the Yuba River to the south; Jack Slough to the north; and the Feather River to the west. These levees vary in height from 16 to 28 feet.

The Yuba River drains out of New Bullards Bar Dam in the Sierra Nevada and runs along the south edge of the Marysville Ring Levee project (MRL) into the Feather River. Jack Slough runs a quarter mile northwest of the MRL and flows into the Feather River. The Feather River drains from Oroville Dam and Reservoir from the north along the western edge of the Marysville Ring Levee and then flows into the Sacramento River.

MRL is a cooperative effort between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), and the Marysville Levee District (District) to protect the City of Marysville from a 200-year flood event.1

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. has been contracted to assess the potential impacts of proposed levee improvements on two National Register-listed historic resources immediately adjacent to, but located outside of, the project Area of Potential Effect (APE, see Figure 1): the Bok Kai Temple (temple) and the Downtown Marysville Commercial Historic District (district). The temple property is currently encroached upon by the north side of the levee. The district is non-contiguous and approximately three blocks of the National Register district are immediately adjacent to the APE. The Downtown Marysville Commercial Historic District is addressed in a separate Historic Structure Impact Report, also completed by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.

1.1 MRL PROJECT SUMMARY

As authorized under the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) IDIQ Contract No.

W91238-10-D-0003, Delivery Order No. 0009, revised June 15, 2011, HDR/Fugro WLA Joint Venture (JV) was tasked with preparation of the Alternative Analysis for the Marysville Ring Levee Phase 2B (MRL) and the geophysical and pothole exploration of levee penetrations and encroachments, in support of levee improvement and reconstruction. The entire Marysville ring levee consists of approximately 7.5 miles of the levee surrounding and protecting the City of Marysville, California. Planned levee improvement measures throughout the ring levee address underseepage, through-seepage, embankment slope stability, utility penetrations, constructability, settlement, and geometrical corrections to the levee embankment. The MRL Engineering Documentation Report (EDR) and the MRL Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the engineering and environmental aspects, respectively, of the Phase 1 through 4 levee improvements for the entire Marysville area flood protection system. The Geotechnical Appendix of the MRL EDR identifies Phase 2 as a critical reach requiring levee improvements.

In particular, the reach from Stations 244+00 to 285+00, Phase 2B was identified as a critical reach due to past performance and past repairs as well as its close proximity to historic structures. Additionally, penetrations and encroachments in the levee embankment and foundations dating to the mid 19th century have abandoned underground construction with

1 “Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California,” (March 2011), 1.

Figure 1. The project APE. The APE follows the physical extent of the levee around Marysville. Areas of anticipated staging are also included where the APE extends beyond the immediate levee confines.2 potential voids that may cause instability and/or seepage. The USACE engineer’s opinion is that this site may have serious defects due to these conditions and requires through and underseepage mitigation. The MRL Phase 2B project was divided into three segments for the alternative analysis: Segments K1, K2 and L1.

The mitigation measures considered for the MRL Phase 2B project are levee degradation/ reconstruction and cutoff wall construction. Levee degradation/reconstruction involves degrading (removal) of the existing levee and reconstructing a new levee. The cutoff wall measure involves degrading approximately the top half of the levee, constructing a cutoff wall to the necessary depth and reconstructing the top portion of the levee. Both mitigation measures involve only standard earthmoving equipment.

2 Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California, March 2011, Attachment A.

Attachment A. Area of Potential Effects

The through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment K1 are levee degradation/ reconstruction and a cutoff wall. Only one alignment option was considered (existing alignment). This is the segment in closest proximity to the Bok Kai Temple.

The underseepage and through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment K2 only included a cutoff wall. There are two alignment options considered (existing alignment and slightly modified alignment). The cutoff wall in this segment will be slightly deeper for underseepage mitigation. This is the segment in closest proximity to historic district contributing buildings in poor condition.

The through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment L1 are levee degradation/ reconstruction and a cutoff wall. There are four alignment options under consideration (existing alignment, slightly modified alignment, and two set forward alignments). For the existing and slightly modified alignments, levee degradation/reconstruction and cutoff wall mitigation measures are considered, similar to Segment K1. Similar to Segment K2, cutoff wall mitigation measures are assumed for the set forward alignments located approximately 100 feet to 300 feet east of the existing levee. Segment L1 is not located near any identified historic resources.

Phase 2B consists of several construction techniques used in combination to install a 50- to 90-foot deep, cutoff wall through much of the length. In addition, jet grouting would occur at the four bridges in this section (5th Street Bridge, Highway 70 Bridge, two railroad bridges).

Construction in the Phase 2B portion must consider impacts on the historic resources as well as treatment of existing utilities with through-levee placements. All work associated with Phase 2B is projected to use conventional construction equipment such as loaders, scrapers, graders, and excavators.3

The following descriptions represent the extent of construction methods anticipated.

1.1.1 Cutoff Wall Construction

The levee crown would be degraded down 4- to 12-feet to provide a 40- to 50-foot temporary work surface for construction equipment. Conventional cutoff walls are constructed using an excavator with a long-stick boom capable of digging a trench to a maximum depth of approximately 75 to 80 feet. Some excavators can reach depths of up to 90 feet. The trench width will vary depending on depth, but it is assumed for this report the minimum width would be 36 inches (3 feet). A bentonite slurry is placed in the trench as it is excavated to prevent caving while the backfill material is mixed. The excavated soil is mixed with the appropriate slurry (either bentonite or cement-bentonite) to achieve the required cutoff wall strength and permeability, and then backfilled into the trench. The levee portion that was degraded is now reconstructed. All work is completed with standard earthmoving equipment.

1.1.2 Levee Reconstruction

Instead of degrading only a portion of the levee as above, with Levee Reconstruction the levee is completely degraded. In some cases, a cutoff wall described above is installed at the location of the new levee alignment. In these areas, a working platform would be constructed above the existing ground surface for construction of the cutoff wall. After levee degrading and cutoff

3 United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Final, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, Environmental Assessment, Initial Study,” (April 2010), 10.

wall installation, the levee is reconstructed. All work is completed with standard earthmoving equipment.

1.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 Section 106

The preparation of this Historic Structure Impact Report is part of the mandated adherence to Section 106 review, 36 CFR Part 800, as amended in August 2004. Section 106 requires that federal agencies, and entities that they fund or license, consider the effects of their actions on properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or that may be eligible for such listing. To determine whether an undertaking could affect NRHP-eligible properties, cultural resources, including archaeological, historical, and architectural properties, must be inventoried and evaluated. Although compliance with Section 106 is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can conduct the work necessary to comply. Additionally, because both the Downtown Marysville Commercial District and the Bok Kai Temple are National Register listed historic resources, it is a statutory requirement under Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) that the agency official (Corps and CVFPB), to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm resulting from an undertaking.

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Corps entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) regarding treatment of both the Bok Kai Temple and Marysville Commercial Historic District during this project.

The NHPA defines an effect as an alteration to the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Effects can be found adverse or not adverse. Adverse effects are defined by the Criteria of Adverse Effect as outlined in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify that property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of that property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. In applying the criteria of adverse effect, regulations require that consideration be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Examples of adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:

1. Physical destruction of, or damage to, all or part of the property;

2. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and applicable guidelines;

3. Removal of the property from its historic location;

4. Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;

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

6. Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and

7. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance.4

1.2.2 CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15064.5) requires the lead CEQA agency to assess the impacts of the project on cultural resources. For the MRL, the lead CEQA agency is the lead non-Federal agency, CVFPB.5 Historical resources are defined as “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”6 Before the level of significance of impacts can be determined and appropriate mitigation measures developed, the significance of historical resources must be determined. Generally, the application of Section 106 is considered to adequately address the requirements of CEQA.

This report is intended to provide information to related to compliance with both Section 106 and CEQA for the MRL Phase 2B project.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

In preparation for this project, a number of previous studies have been conducted related to the potential construction methods under consideration, site specific qualities such as soil and levee condition, identification of known and potential historic resources in the area, and possible impacts related to levee repairs. The conclusions in each report are consistent and form the basis for many of the conclusions and recommendations in this document. The following presents the most relevant project-related studies and their findings.

• Roger Zemba, Memorandum for Record: Structural Observations and Analysis for Historic Structures – Marysville Ring Levee Construction, 13 January 2010

This memo is included as Attachment A of the 14 January 2010 memo by Erik James. It briefly describes the condition of the Temple, as observed in October 2009, as good and structurally sound. Recent repairs were noted, including replacement of the tile roof with wood shingles and replacement of the two supporting porch columns. The memo highlights the existence of a sheet pile wall approximately half-way between the Temple

4 “Code of Federal Regulations, Section 36, Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, Subpart B, Section 800.5(2)(i-vii),” (Washington, D.C., 2004).

5 Initial Study, 117.

6 California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(j).

and the proposed construction location. The author states that the construction methods used to install the existing sheet pile wall are much more impactful and likely to have caused damage than the methods proposed for the MRL project. Also, the MRL project would be nearly twice as far away as the existing sheet pile wall, further reducing the likelihood of construction-related adverse impacts to the Temple. It concludes that if construction methods were carefully selected, no impacts were likely to the Bok Kai Temple.

• Erik James, Memorandum for Record: Marysville Ring Levee EDR – Bok Kai Temple Construction Impact Evaluation, 14 January 2010

This memo summarizes the findings of the earlier January 13, 2012 memo and adds calculations of anticipated vibrations based on methodology from Caltrans Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibrations Guidance Manual. They used a conservative distance of 40-feet between the Temple and proposed construction activities and values associated with heavy impact construction equipment such as pile drilling equipment and large bulldozers (0.089 in/sec PPV). Even with site-specific soils data, they used a more conservative n-value of 1.1 to provide as conservative an estimate as possible for consideration. Their result was an anticipated peak particle velocity from construction equipment (PPV) of 0.05 in/sec.

The memo concludes that level of anticipated vibration is below recognized thresholds where damage to buildings in good repair (like the Temple) is unlikely. It recommends a number of measures to limit construction-related vibrations as well as monitoring of the historic resource during construction.

• HDR, Inc., Engineering Documentation Report, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, April 12, 2010

The MRL is part of the larger Yuba River Basin project. As such it is covered under the environmental review documents produced for that project. Modifications to the MRL required creation of a separate document to verify that the conditions outlined in the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) remain valid. The report concluded that the MRL project is consistent with the original project review. The original NEPA determination of a Finding of No Significant Impact and CEQA findings justifying a Negative Declaration remain valid.

• Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, April 2010

This document concluded with a finding of No Significant Impact (NEPA) and supported a Negative Declaration (CEQA) for the Marysville Ring Levee improvements.

It discussed a number of potential and known historic resources, including the Bok Kai Temple and the Downtown Marysville Commercial District. Drawing primarily from the two January 2010 memos referenced above, it concluded the project was unlikely to result in impacts to these historic resource and recommended additional study and monitoring.

• HDR/Fugro/WLA, Geotechnical Data Report, Marysville Ring Levee, Phase 2B, Marysville, California, December 7, 2012

This survey established areas of previous intrusions or voids in the levee as well as summarizing the known geologic history and categorization of soils in the Marysville area. Previous intrusions include a sheet pile wall near the Bok Kai Temple. The top of the wall will be located four-feet below the ground surface.

• HDR/Fugro/WLA, Final Alternatives Analysis, Marysville Ring Levee Phase 2B, Yuba River Basin, California, July 2012

The major problems with the Phase 2B levee segments are identified as through-seepage and underseepage during high water events. Three possible solutions were deemed viable for the three segments: shallow cutoff wall, deep cutoff walls, and levee reconstruction. Four different possible alignments were also considered. The result was eight different alternatives presented in the report ranging in cost from approximately $11 million to $17 million.

1.4 IMPACT REPORT GOALS AND METHODOLOGY

The goal of this historic structure impact report is to analyze potential impacts of the proposed project and project alternatives on the historic resource. Based on that analysis, recommendations to mitigate any potential impacts have been developed. The bulk of this analysis centers on evaluation of the possible vibrations resulting form proposed construction and comparison of these anticipated values with the body of literature concerned with establishing construction-related vibrations thresholds for historic buildings. This report is the second of a two-phase evaluation process that was preceded by a Marysville Levee Preliminary Historic Resource Impacts memo dated July 19, 2012.

1.4.1 Literature Review

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. reviewed relevant project and historical information including:

• Donald Napoli, Downtown Marysville Commercial Historic District National Register Nomination (1999)

The nomination established the boundaries of the historic district as well as the character defining features of the district. The period of significance includes both 19th and 20th century building campaigns but stops prior to the redevelopment efforts of more recent decades. It provides a historical context for Marysville in general, and minimal contextual information on the Chinese community that established the Bok Kai Temple and occupied the buildings on First Street, closest to the MRL project.

• Architectural Resources Group, Inc., Historic Structure Report: Bok Kai Temple (2002)

The HSR for the Bok Kai Temple describes the conditions of the temple prior to recent repair campaigns. It presents a good overview of the construction chronology of the building and the historical context for the Chinese community in Marysville up through recent times. Appendices to the document include architectural plans and recommendations for structural upgrades to the building. It does not detail what work was undertaken with the 2006 grant awards.

• California Department of Transportation, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (2004)

This document serves as the basis for evaluation of vibrations-related impacts on buildings in various states of repair and construction types. It presents formulas for evaluation of site-specific conditions and recommends vibrations thresholds for construction-related activities. While it is not the only vibrations guideline referenced in this report, it is the only one specifically mentioned in the scope of work for the MRL project.

• Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California (2011)

The MOA establishes documentation and methodology requirements regarding the historic resources near the APE for the MRL project. It represents the agreement between the major stakeholders and serves as the overarching guideline for this document.

1.4.2 Field Investigations

After review of relevant background information, a site visit was conducted on December 7, 2011 to inspect the interior and exterior of the Bok Kai Temple for existing conditions, and to conduct a general exterior survey of buildings in the historic district within 200 feet of the MRL project. This site visit included Architectural Conservator and Historian, Becky Urbano (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.), Structural Engineer, Steve Duquette (Duquette Engineering), and HDR team member and vibrations expert, Dr. Sandy Figuers (Norfleet Consultants). A second site visit was conducted on August 30, 2012 to observe and note interior conditions of the buildings on the south side of First Street. This memo is the result of observations made during those site tours as informed by the background project information and ongoing conversations with HDR, the Corps, and other team members.

2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE

2.1 HISTORY

Architectural Resources Group (ARG) completed a Historic Structure Report for the Bok Kai Temple in 2002 (see Figure 2). The building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in May 2002. As defined in the National Register nomination, the years 1880-1930 mark the period of significance for the building, spanning from the building’s dedication in March 1880 to the time when the Chinese population in Marysville was decreasing. The following historic overview is quoted from ARG’s Historic Structure Report for the Bok Kai Temple. Please see the original document for more information.

Figure 2. Bok Kai Temple, c.1880. This image shows the temple shortly after its reached its current form.

Note the different colors of the east and west wings and the detail in the wood frieze panel between the porch columns. (Image courtesy of the Bok Kai Temple website.)

2.1.1 Developmental History and Context of Marysville

The city of Marysville lies at the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers in Yuba County on a portion of land granted to John Sutter by the Mexican rulers of California in 1841. Sutter leased part of his land to Theodor Cordua, who built a rancho on the north bank of the Yuba River, just east of its junction with the Feather River, and raised livestock in the surrounding area. This was the beginning of the settlement that would soon become Marysville. In 1848, Cordua sold a half interest in the land to a former employee of his, Charles Covillaud, and later sold his remaining interest to Michael Nye and William Foster. Covillaud’s partners in the land grant soon changed so that by 1849 four men, Covillaud, Jose Manuel Ramirez, John Simpson, and Theodore Sicard had become Covillaud and Company. In 1850, town lots were mapped out, parcels sold, and the name of Marysville chosen for the new town in honor of Mary Murphy, the wife of Charles Covillaud and a survivor of the infamous Donner Party. Marysville was incorporated as a town by the California Legislature in 1851.

Marysville’s early history is directly linked to the discovery and exploitation of gold in the nearby foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Following the discovery of gold at Sutter’s lumber mill in Coloma in January 1848, Marysville’s potential as a point of transfer for goods, people, and riches was quickly realized. The position of Marysville at the meeting of two navigable rivers, and its relative proximity to San Francisco, Sacramento, and the gold fields, made the site well suited to take advantage of the Gold Rush economy.

Although gold discoveries were made just a few miles from the town, most of the early growth of Marysville was based on the related industries of trade, transportation, and financing, not directly on mining enterprises.

2.1.2 [Marysville Chinese Community]

As with other communities in California that grew rapidly during the Gold Rush period, Chinese immigrants were quick to establish homes, businesses, and a sizeable presence in Marysville. Although there is evidence of some Chinese presence in California before 1841, it was after the discovery of gold at Sutter’s mill that the number of Chinese immigrants became substantial. These Chinese immigrants, many from Kwangtung (Canton) province, voyaged across the Pacific to work in the gold fields, build the railroads, and open the businesses that would help to establish the early California economy.

The earliest temple built by the Chinese community in Marysville was probably constructed in 1854 on the north bank of the Yuba River at what was then the southeast corner of the young town. The likely location of this temple, at the southeast corner of what is currently First and B Streets, was adjacent to the Chinese quarter of Marysville that began to develop along the bank of the Yuba river. The temple was also situated near a stream that drained into the Yuba River, where it provided a spiritual barrier to the outward flow of positive energy away from the community and the inward floor of evil spirits along the stream of the river. As detailed by Dr. Paul Chace, the temple property was owned by attorneys for the Chinese through the 1860s and then transferred to the Hong Woo & Co., the largest Sze Yup business in Marysville. Sze Yup refers to four districts in Southern china populated by peoples sharing a common dialect and ethnic identity. Late in the winter of 1874, devastating flooding of the rivers in Marysville forces the city to widen the levee along the Yuba River, including the area at First and B Streets.

2.1.3 Development of the [Bok Kai Temple] Site

The existing Bok Kai Temple is situated between several structures and the levee along the north bank of the Yuba River. The Temple’s current location, south of First Street near D Street, dates to 1880. At that time, the front of the temple would have faced Front Street, and D Street would have run along the west side of the Temple to the bank of the Yuba River. Situated at the northeastern corner of the principal bridge into the city, the Temple became the first building everyone saw when entering early Marysville.

Before the founding of the Bok Kai Temple at its current site, a brick bathhouse and saloon occupied the property at the corner of D and Front Streets. This structure, dating to 1852, was owned by William H. Clark who operated it as the Marysville City Baths. The one-story structure, approximately 20-feet by 60-feet with a basement, was enlarged circa 1856. Clark owned the expanded 20-foot by 80-foot lot until 1857 when it was then auctioned off and passed through a series of owners through the 1860s.

In March 1869, members of the Marysville Chinese community acquired the brick bathhouse building and began work to reconstruct the structure a Chinese temple. The new Chinese temple was dedicated and opened to the public on May 15, 1869. The front of the building was described in newspaper accounts as ‘ornamented with Chinese paintings’ and the temple hall as ‘gay if not gaudy’ and ‘about fourteen foot square.’ This temple is called the ‘Bok Ky Church’ in Marysville’s 1876 tax records. The northern wall of the 1852 bathhouse probably remained as the northern wall of the 1869 temple altar hall. The southern wall of the temple may have been newly constructed in 1869 to create a recessed front porch and entrance to the altar hall, a traditional southern Chinese architectural style. If this is the case, the walls onto which the exterior mural is currently painted would date to 1869.

In the site development scenario proposed above, the 1869 temple building would have occupied the southern half of the current site of the Bok Kai Temple. The property immediately adjacent to the 1869 temple on the north appears to have been undeveloped until 1858. At that time, a substantial improvement is listed for the property in the city’s Assessment Roll Book. This improvement may correspond to the construction of an on-site brick building.

The owner of the property, as recorded in the 1859 Book of Deeds, is Isaac Belcher, a prominent lawyer in Marysville. Although Belcher owned the20-foot by 80-foot lot until October 1872, it is possible that the lease for the 1869 temple included Belcher’s land and building on the northern half of the site. In 1872, Thomas Seward and E.C. Ross acquired the Belcher property. These two men had obtained legal ownership of the southern 20-foot by 80-foot Bok Kai Temple property in August of the same year. Seaward and his estate retained ownership of the consolidated 40-foot by 80-foot lot at Front and D Streets until February 1880, at which time the parcel was purchased by Chow You and Yee Wat Chung through an administrator of the deceased Seward’s estate, Title to the property was then transferred to the Trustees of the Bock Ky Church[.]

The renovation and expansion of the structure that is the present Bok Kai Temple was underway by January 1880. Although the extent of renovation is not definitively known, it likely includes the construction of new east and west bearing walls for the expanded Altar Hall and the application of many decorative details, including the mural painting at the front porch walls. The other brick bearing walls at the perimeter of the current Temple structure probably incorporate the walls of the 1852 Bathhouse and 1858 Belcher building.

Some of the work performed as part of the expansion of the Bok Kai Temple was carried out by Swain & Hudson, a major building firm in Marysville at the time, Chinese craftsmen did other work, including the painting of the figurative and ornamental murals at the entrance porch. The architectural design of the temple was based on ‘models furnished…by the Chinese’ and ‘plans drawn by Chinese draftsmen,’ according to contemporary newspaper accounts. The construction of the 1880 Bok Kai Temple was accomplished with money from Chinese community members. The names of these people who contributed to the Temple are listed in a plaque in the Altar Hall. The Bok Kai Temple was dedicated in March 1880.

The founding of the temple was a symbol of the growing presence and influence of the Chinese community in Marysville. The maintenance and upkeep of the temple required contributions from every member of the community, both in time and money.