Appendix G: Agency Correspondence

Appendix G Agency Correspondence

State Route 1 Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project Final EIR/EA with FONSI 04-0A0200 This page left blank intentionally. STATE OP CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANS} ,(ATtON AND l[OUSINQ AOl!NCY ____....,(l,.,,.RN,.,,,.,Ok.,,.D'""s=c 1...._1w,.._,11,R;',,_llliil<:iCIW,. Quy« r1J9r

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient}

May 19, 2010

Bodega Bay Historical Society

Bodega Bay, CA 94923

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15 .2 to 15. 7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-tum lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

We are conducting a survey to identify properties that are historically and/or architecturally significant within the project area. This survey is being conducted as part of this agency's compliance with Section 106 and with the California Environmental Quality Act. When properties are found which are significant and are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or qualify as historical resources under CEQA, the proposed project's effects on such properties are given careful consideration during environmental review.

Our surveys of historic properties are as thorough as possible. However, we realize that you and/or your organizations possess specialized knowledge of the local area. We are especially concerned with properties which may be community landmarks but whose architectural importance may not be obvious. Of particular interest is information regarding the Gleason-Mann Ranch and the possibility that the original portion of the house maybe a Russian built cabin, we are looking for documentation to support this. If you or any of your associates know of historic properties in the project area indicated on the enclosed maps, including any buildings or structures built prior to 1965, and/or might have information regarding the Gleason-Mann Ranch, please contact Frances Schierenbeck, Architectural Historian, by telephone, mail, or email. Ms. Schierenbeck can be reached at or at the address on this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at . Any assistance and information you can provide will be most appreciated.

Sincerely, e-t-~,,..\.a. .e..--W lY\ c \~ Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans imvroves mobilitv across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TRANSl:,0 ,IATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCl:IWARZENijGGEl!,, Govcmm

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAK.LAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power.I FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient/

May 19, 2010

Fort Ross Interpretive Association

Jenner, CA 95450

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15 .2 to 15. 7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-turn lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

We are conducting a survey to identify properties that are historically and/or architecturally significant within the project area. This survey is being conducted as part of this agency's compliance with Section 106 and with the California Environmental Quality Act. When properties are found which are signili.cant and are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRBP), or qualify as historical resources under CEQA, the proposed project's effects on such properties are given careful consideration during environmental review.

Sincerely, E~- ,.~ "'-----w r~~-\ c_\(._.Q__('.__ Elizabe~ Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans improves mobilitv across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSTI-JESS 1RANSF-~"fATION AND HOlJSfNG AGENCY AR.NOLD SCH\¥ARZENEGGER Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0. BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex yo11r power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient!

May 19, 2010

Fort Ross State Historic Park

Jenner, CA 95450

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15.2 to 15 .7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the· current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-tum lane and an access road, with turn:.arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Sincerely, CJv, ~ ,,_Y::)

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans imoroves mobilitv across Cc,li(ornia" This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANS, --=.e-f_,__,_A'=J'IO"--'-N_,__,_A.,,__,ND""---'--"HO"'--'U"'-S'--'--'IN""-G'--"AG""'Ee.ecNC "--'Y'------~A=R=NO=L=D=SC=,HW"--'-'-'-'A=RZ=E=NE=G=G=ER,.,,.__G"'-'o=ve=mor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I 11 GRAND A VENUE P. 0. BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAK.LAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power.I FAX (510)286-6374 Be energy ejfic1enr!

May 19, 2010

Rancho Bodega Historical Society

Bodega Bay, CA 94923

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15 .2 to 15. 7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-turn lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Our surveys of historic properties are as thorough as possible. However, we realize that you and/or your organizations possess specialized knowledge of the local area. We are especially concerned with properties which may be community landmarks but whose architectural importance may not be obvious. Of particular interest is information regarding the Gleason-Mann Ranch and the possibility that the original portion of the house maybe a Russian built cabin, we are looking for documentation to support this. If you or any of your associates know of historic properties in the project area indicated on the enclosed maps, including any buildings or structures built prior to 1965, and/or might have information regarding the. Gleason-Mann Ranch, please contact Frances Schierenbeck, Architectural Historian, by telephone, mail, or email. Ms. Schierenbeck can be reached at or at the address on this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at . Any assistance and information you can provide will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

s~u"\-,_e__,...\---J j"-,r" (_ ~ Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Calrrans imvroves 111obiliti1across Cali(ornia" This page left blank intentionally. STAmOr CA!JfORN!A BUS1rl~IY..~J..>i.!li8J.'.IOO..e,Ji0,.,.J-..,l0.,_,.U=Sl,..NG....,· A=C=E=NC=Y~------~ AI- l=N-OL,.,.P~S-CJ=IW-Afl-Z_8_NE~·O=q-rm~,Ou=""=ffi°'

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11 l GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power/ FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient/

May 19, 2010

Sonoma County Genealogical Society

Santa Rosa, CA 95405-0273

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15.2 to 15.7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-tum lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Sincerely, C~"'- J.<-h..e.__J ~ c_\~. Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Cal/rans imvroves mobi/itp across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE or, CALJFORNIA BUSil>IESS TRANSI·~ ,ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (-510) 286-5612 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient!

May 19, 2010

Sonoma County Historical Society

Santa Rosa, CA 95402

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15.2 to 15.7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-turn lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Sincerely, ~ J,.----W IV\ c__LJuL__ Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans imoroves 111obili1v across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE 01' CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANS, .fATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCOWt\T~UNECJO~R, (iovcmor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power! FAX (510)286-6374 Be energy efficient!

May 19, 2010

Sonoma County Landmarks Commission

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Sir or Madam:

Cal trans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15 .2 to 15. 7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-turn lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Sincerely,

~ I (~------c__\Lc.-<.__ E~~Jh\;~~ ' Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans improves mobilitv across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE Or< CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANS ----"J""-«T_,_,_A'-'-"Tl'-"-ON'-'--'-'-'AN~DH'-"-OU""S"-'il',!-'-"G'-'--'A"'-'GE~•N=C_,__Y------~/\RN= O=LD~S=C~I-JW=ARZ~ T,~.NE-•G=G=E,.,,R,-"-G=ov=ern=or

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11 J GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-5612 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient!

May 19, 2010

Sonoma County Museum

Santa Rosa CA, 95401

Dear Sir or Madam:

Cal trans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15 .2 to 15.7 The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-turn lane and an access road, with tum-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

Our surveys of historic properties are as thorough as possible. However, we realize that you and/or your organizations possess specialized knowledge of the local area. We are especially concerned with properties which may be community landmarks but whose architectural importance may not be obvious. Of particular interest is information regarding the Gleason-Mann Ranch and the possibility that the original portion of the house maybe a Russian built cabin, we are looking for documentation to support this . If you or any of your associates know of historic properties in the project area indicated on the enclosed maps, including any buildings or structures built prior to 1965, and/or might have information regarding the Gleason-Mann Ranch, please contact Frances Schierenbeck, Architectural Historian, by telephone, mail, or email. Ms. Schierenbeck can be reached at or at the address on this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at . Any assistance and information you can provide will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

au6-- b c::..--\-~_J (\I\ c.J.,e__"-c__ Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans imoroves 111obilih1 across California" This page left blank intentionally. sTATE oF cALJFoRNIA-BusINEss TRANs1 .,_,,..... , r11.,, Tu,J O.a:Nu.:11,uND..,_H.,,o"""u=s™=o,,_,_,,Ao...,EN_c.._.y.______., ..,,\R=No""1,..,o=sc"""·,=1w,_,_,A,,,Rz=.E=Nn=.c=oc...• R=,o=,1= "c=•r1Ur

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0. BOX 23660 Mail Station 8-A OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660

PHONE (510) 286-5612 Flex your power I FAX (510)286-6374 Be energy efficient!

May 19, 2010

West County Museum

Sebastopol CA 95472

Dear Sir or Madam:

Caltrans has initiated the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for a proposed project to realign a portion of State Route 1, eastward and away from the ocean, in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County at post mile 15.2 to 15.7. The project will construct a section of two-lane conventional highway and a bridge connecting to the current alignment at the south, just south of Scotty Creek, and at the north end 0.45 miles north of Scotty Creek. A left-tum lane and an access road, with turn-arounds at either end, will be constructed to provide access to residents on the old alignment. New driveways will be constructed as needed.

We are conducting a survey to identify properties that are historically and/ or architecturally significant within the project area. This survey is being conducted as part of this agency's compliance with Section 106 and with the California Environmental Quality Act. When properties are found which are significant and are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or qualify as historical resources under CEQA, the proposed project's effects on such properties are given careful consideration during environmental review.

Sincerely,

~\~ ~\=c. e---U (V\ C ~ ~ Elizabeth Mckee Branch Chief, North and Local Assistance Office of Cultural Resource Studies

Enclosure: Project Location Maps CC: CRS Files, HRC

"Ca/trans improves mobilitv across California" This page left blank intentionally. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1455 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941

.AUG 4 - 2010, ;. Regulatory Division

SUBJECT: File Number 2010-00280N

Mr. Jeffrey G. Jensen California Department of Transportation Office of Biological Sciences & Permits

Oakland, California 94623-0660

Dear Mr. Jensen:

This letter is written in response to your submittal of September 18, 2008 requesting confirmation of the extent of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction at the Sonoma State Route 1 Gleason Beach Realignment Project, Post Miles 15.2/15.7, approximately 4.5 miles drive north of Bodega Bay in the area of Scotty Creek.

Enclosed are 4 copies of a one page map showing the extent and location of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction entitled "USACE File# 2010-00280N, "Son 001 Gleason Beach Area Realign Roadway Project Jurisdictional Determination", dated July 27, 2010. We have based this jurisdictional delineation on the current conditions on the site as verified during a site visit performed by our staff on November 9, 2001. A change in those conditions may also change the extent of our jurisdiction. This jurisdictional delineation will expire in five years from the date of this letter. However, if there has been a change in circumstances that affects the extent of Corps jurisdiction, a revision may be completed before that date.

All proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be authorized by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1344). Waters of the United States generally include tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and wetlands.

Your proposed activity is within our jurisdiction and a permit will be required for your project. Application for Corps authorization should be made to this office using the application forms which have already been sent to your office. To avoid delays it is essential that you enter the file number at the top of this letter into the appropriate location on the application. The application must include plans showing the location, extent and character of the proposed activity. You should note, in planning your project, that upon receipt of a properly completed application and plans, it may be necessary to advertise the proposed work by issuing a Public Notice for a period of 30 days. -2-

Our Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits have already been issued to authorize certain activities provided specified conditions are met. Your completed application will enable us to confirm that your activity is already authorized. You are advised to refrain from starting your proposed activity until we make a determination that the project is covered by an existing permit. Commencement of work before you receive our notification will be interpreted as a violation of our regulations.

You are advised that the Corps has established an Administrative Appeal Process, as described in 33 C.F.R. Part 331 (65 Fed. Reg. 16,486; March 28, 2000), and outlined in the enclosed flowchart and "Notification of Administrative Appeal Options, Process, and Request for Appeal" form (NAO-RFA). If you do not intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination, you may elect to provide new information to the District Engineer for reconsideration or submit a completed NAO-RFA form to the Division Engineer to initiate the appeal process. You will relinquish all rights to appeal, unless the Corps receives new information or a completed NAO-RFA form within sixty (60) days of the date of the NAO-RFA.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Hal Durio of our Regulatory Division at . Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Division and refer to the File Number at the head of this letter. If you would like to provide comments on our permit review process, please complete the Customer Survey Form available online at .

Sincerely, ~?l~.y Jane M. Hicks Chief, Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Copy Furnished

CA RWQCB, Santa Rosa, CA NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: California Department of Transportation I File Number: 2010-00280N Date: Aug 3, 2010 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A FINAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTION AL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg or Corps Regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the District Engineer. Your objections must be received by the District Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the District Engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the District Engineer will send you a fmal proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: FINAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or decline/appeal the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the District Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission {LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section IT of this fonn and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this Notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the Division Engineer. This form must be received by the Division Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The preliminary JD is not appealablc. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps District for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. Administrative Appeal Process for Approved Jurisdictional Determinations

District issues approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD) to applicant/landowner with NAP.

Approved JD valid for 5 years. Yes

District makes new approved JD. Yes

Applicant decides to appeal approved JD. Applicant submits RFA to division engineer within 60 days of date of NAP.

Corps reviews RFA and notifies appellant within 30 days of receipt.

To continue with appeal process, appellant must revise RFA. No See Appendix D.

Optional JD Appeals Meeting and/or site investigation.

RO reviews record and the division engineer (or designee) renders a decision on the merits of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of an acceptable RF A.

Division engineer or designee remands decision to district, with specific instructions, for reconsideration; appeal Yes process completed.

District's decision is upheld; appeal process completed. Appendix C STATE Of' CA LIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPOlff/\TION AND HOUSING AG ENCY Edlllynd G. llrow11 Jr.. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-4444 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient! TTY (800) 735-2929

August 2, 2012

Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation

Sacramento, CA 95816

RE: Eligibility Determinations for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA.

Dear Mr. Donaldson:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is initiating consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project (Undertaking). On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), Caltrans is proposing to realign State Route 1 inland, away from the eroding coastline, between postmiles 15.08 and 15.75, in Sonoma County (see attached Figure). A full project description can be found on page 1 of the enclosed Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR).

Section 106 responsibilities for this Undertaking have been conducted in accordance with the January 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (hereafter, the PA).

Enclosed you will find a HPSR, a Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER), and an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) for the proposed Undertaking. The HPSR summarizes: 1) our determination of the Area of Potential Effects (APE); 2) an identification of historic properties located within the Undertaking's APE; and, 3) an evaluation of historic properties for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

We are consulting with you at this present time under Stipulation VIII.C.5 of the PA to obtain concurrence on eligibility determinations for built environment historic properties and that archaeological properties, for the purposes of this Undertaking, will be considered eligible for the NRHP.

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project August 2, 2012 Page2

Identification efforts for the Gleason Beach Realignment Project identified seventeen potential historic properties within the APE; twelve built environment resources and five archaeological sites. Seven of the built environment properties were determined eligible for the NRHP.

In accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.5 of the PA, Caltrans is requesting your concurrence on the National Register eligibility of the following built resources, recorded and evaluated in the attached HRER.

The following properties have been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of this study:

Address Name

The following properties have been determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of this study:

Address Name

An ASR has been prepared for the Undertaking and is submitted with the attached documentation. With the exception of which was previously determined eligible in 2003 (FHWA030915C), the identification and evaluation of four archaeological resources, in accordance with Stipulations VIII.Band VIII.C of the PA, is incomplete: • • • • Subsurface archaeological investigations are likely to adversely affect protected biological

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project August 2, 2012 Page 3 resources, and thus lengthy biological permitting is required before the identification of archaeological properties can be completed (see attached Archaeological APE and Biological Constraints Figure). A permitting effort is being pursued expressly for the archaeological investigation in an attempt to satisfy the purpose and timing of Section 106 of the NHP A as set forth in §800.1 ( a) and (c ). Therefore, for the purposes of this Undertaking, archaeological sites within the APE will be considered eligible for the NRHP.

We would appreciate receiving the SHPO's response regarding the determinations of eligibility within 30 days of your receipt of this submittal. If you have any questions, please contact , Chief, Office of Cultural Resources Studies at or .

Thank you for your assistance with this Undertaking.

Sincerely,

~ _,\.o c.,,,~ ~ e-,\C-L-L Elizabeth McKee Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies California Department of Transportation District 4

Attachments: Historic Property Survey Report for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1 PM15.08/15.75, Sonoma County, March 2012.

Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1 PM15.08/15.75, Sonoma County, March 2012.

Archaeological Survey Report for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1 PM15.08/15.75, Sonoma County, February 2012.

CC: Anrnarie Medin, Chief, Cultural Studies Office, Todd Jaftke, Branch Chief, Section 106 Coordination, Caltrans Headquarter OCRS files, HRC files

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

September 18, 2012 Reply To: FHWA120803B

Elizabeth McKee Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies Caltrans District 4

Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Re: Determinations of Eligibility for the Proposed Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment along State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA

Dear Ms. McKee:

Thank you for consulting with me about the subject undertaking in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (PA).

Caltrans has determined that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):

Based on review of the submitted documentation, I concur that the above properties are not eligible for the NRHP.

Caltrans has also found the following properties are eligible for the NRHP. My comments regarding these properties follow below:

 – Caltrans has determined this building eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as an excellent and early example of the Sea Ranch style of architecture. I concur.  – Caltrans has determined this building eligible under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A Caltrans has found the building eligible for J. Carson Bowlers participation in the development, early use and continued development of the Sea Ranch Style. Under Criterion C the building is eligible as a significant and early example of the Sea Ranch Style. While I concur with the building’s eligibility under C, I Ms. McKee September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 2

cannot concur with the building’s eligibility under A. I believe that the arguments given for eligibility under A really are just further evidence of the building’s eligibility under C.  – Caltrans has determined this property eligible under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, Ballard Ranch is significant for its association with the Sonoma coast dairy industry from the 1860s through the 1930s. It is representative of a modest family dairy from that period evolving from butter to milk production. The Gleason family dairy ranch was among the earliest along the coast between Bodega Bay and the Russian River. Caltrans also found the original residence and barn on the property eligible under Criterion C for their type, period and method of construction. While I concur that the property is eligible under A, I do not have enough information at this time to concur that the original residence and barn are eligible under C.  – Caltrans has determined this building eligible under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A Caltrans has found the building eligible for J. Carson Bowlers participation in the development, early use and continued development of the Sea Ranch Style. Under Criterion C the building is eligible as a significant and early example of the Sea Ranch Style. While I concur with the building’s eligibility under C, I cannot concur with the building’s eligibility under A. I believe that the arguments given for eligibility under A really are just further evidence of the building’s eligibility under C.  – Caltrans has determined this building eligible under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A Caltrans has found the building eligible for J. Carson Bowlers participation in the development, early use and continued development of the Sea Ranch Style. Under Criterion C the building is eligible as a significant and early example of the Sea Ranch Style. While I concur with the building’s eligibility under C, I cannot concur with the building’s eligibility under A. I believe that the arguments given for eligibility under A really are just further evidence of the building’s eligibility under C.

Caltrans is assuming eligibility of four archaeological sites due to biological access restrictions. I request that Caltrans complete its identification efforts, which should include subsurface testing as appropriate, for these sites prior to completion of a finding of effect, as Section 106 is a planning process, and the PA is built upon the premise of Caltrans and FHWA completing identification efforts to adequately consider alternatives to avoid effects to the maximum number of historic properties possible, rather than deferring identification until after a decision has been made and it becomes impossible to avoid these resources.

Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. If you have any questions, please contact of my staff at or email at or at or email at .

Sincerely,

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY Edmund G. Omwn Jr., G11vc rnor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-4444 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-6374 Be energy efficient! TTY (800) 735-2929

June 5, 2013

Ms. Carol Roland-Nawi, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation

Sacramento, CA 95816

RE: Consultation regarding a change in Eligibility and Modification of the APE for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA. FHWA120803B

Dear Ms. Roland-Nawi:

On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is proposing to realign State Route 1 inland, away from the eroding coastline, between postmiles 15.1 and 15.8 in Sonoma County. Caltrans is continuing consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the January 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (hereafter, the PA).

In compliance with the PA, we are consulting with you regarding a change in eligibility to the Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch and notifying you of modifications to the Area of Potential Effects maps (APE). Caltrans is requesting concurrence under Stipulation VIII.C.5 of the PA, in the reevaluation of the Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch. The Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch is a complex of buildings built between the 1860s and 1920s as a dairy ranch on a 175-acre parcel on the rural Sonoma County coast. The ranch was initially evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in November of 2011 by JRP Historical Consulting. At that time the ranch was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its significance as an example of a modest coastal family dairy. The SHPO concurred with the NRHP findings on September 18, 2012.

Within the Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch complex, and the surrounding landscape, a large hay/dairy barn was the dominant structure. In January of 2013 the property owners deconstructed the barn for salvage. The removal of the barn impacts the integrity, and thus the eligibility of the ranch complex by changing the setting, design, feeling, and association of the ranch. The

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" FHWA120803B June 3, 2013 Page2 remaining ranch buildings do not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as a small family owned dairy ranch. Without the dairy/hay barn, it is no longer representative of a modest family dairy. Caltrans is seeking SHPO concurrence with its determination that the Gleason- Mann-Ballard Ranch is no longer eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A of the NRHP for its association with the Sonoma County coast dairy industry from 1865 through 1940 (see attached DPR update form).

Additionally, per Stipulation VIII.A of the PA, Caltrans is notifying you of modifications to the APE. Refinements to the project design necessitate the expansion of both the architectural and archaeological APE. Changes to the APE, as identified in the enclosed maps, consist of minor expansions at the northernmost and southernmost ends of the APE. We look forward to receiving your response regarding concurrence on the ineligibility of the Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch within 30 days of your receipt of this submittal, in accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.5 of the PA.

If you have any questions, please contact , Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies at or . If you have any questions regarding architectural history, please contact or . If you have any questions regarding archaeology, please contact or .

Thank you for your assistance with this Undertaking.

Sincerely, c~~c>'\::, ""~ (Y\ e,,\~ Elizabeth McKee Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies California Department of Transportation District 4

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" FHWA120803B June 3, 2013 Page 3

Attachments:

Schierenbeck, Frances. "Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch DPR Update" California Department of Transportation. Oakland, CA: May 2013.

Updated Archaeology Area of Potential Effect Map for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1 PM 15.1/15.8 Sonoma County, March 2013

Updated Architectural History Area of Potential Effect Map for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1 PM 15.1/15.8 Sonoma County, May 2013

CC: Anmarie Medin, Chief, Cultural Studies Office; Todd Jaflke, Section 106 Coordinator, Cultural Studies Office; D4 OCRS files; HRC files

August 7, 2013 Reply To: FHWA120803B

Elizabeth McKee Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies Caltrans District 4

Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Re: Determination of Eligibility for the Proposed Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, along State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA

Dear Ms. McKee:

The Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch was previously determined to be eligible in September of 2012 under Criterion A as an example of a modest coastal family dairy. Within the ranch complex a large hay/dairy barn was the dominant structure. In January of 2013 the property owners deconstructed the barn for salvage. This removal impacts the integrity and eligibility of the ranch complex by changing the setting, design, feeling and association of the ranch. As a result Caltrans has determined that the Gleason-Mann-Ballard Ranch is no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Based on review of the submitted documentation, I concur with your determination.

Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. If you have any questions, please contact of my staff at or email at .

Sincerely,

Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer This page left blank intentionally. us. PIBI[ • WILIJLDl'B BBRV1CB United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office ld'JJs ... ~~ 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 In Reply Refer To: 81420-2010-F-0007-1 'AUG 162013

Mr. Hardeep Takhar California Department of Transportation Environmental Division, MS-8E

Oakland, California 94612

Subject: Draft Biological Opinion for the Proposed Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, California (Caltrans EA 04-0A0200)

Dear Mr. Takhar:

Enclosed is the requested draft Biological Opinion (BO) for the archaeological and geotechnical investigations associated with the proposed Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project in Sonoma County, California. We received your request to initiate formal consultation on July 15, 2013. At issue are the potential adverse effects to the endangered Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrt/eae) and the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). These two species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ( 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). Once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received, reviewed, and if necessary, resolved your comments, we will finalize and issue the amendment.

If you have questions regarding the draft BO, please contact , Caltrans Liaison or , Coast-Bay/Forest Foothills Division Chief , at the letterhead address, , or by electronic mail.

Sincerely,

'(}N{w),i)JK For JenniferNorris Field Supervisor

Enclosure: cc: Melissa Escaron, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Napa, California Brendan Thompson, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, California Paula Gill, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California Joe Heublein, National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, California Misti Harris, County of Sonoma, Santa Rosa, California Chris States and Lindsay Vivian, Caltrans District 4, Oakland, California This page left blank intentionally. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1 1455 MARKET STREET, 16 H FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103-1398

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

Regulatory Division AUG 2 9 2013 Subject: File Number 2010-00280N

Mr. Hardeep Takhar California Department of Transportation

Oakland, California 94612

Dear Mr. Takhar:

This correspondence is in reference to your submittal of July 23, 2013, concerning Department of the Army (DA) authorization to complete archaeological and geotechnical investigations required for the Gleason Beach roadway alignment located along Highway 1, between post miles 15.1 and 15.7, east of Gleason Beach, in unincorporated Sonoma County, California (38.38328, -123.08219).

Caltrans intends to construct the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project to move State Route 1 inland, away from the eroding coastline, in the vicinity of Gleason Beach. To support the overall realignment design,archaeological and geotechnical investigations are required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended,16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470h and to provide baseline information for project design. Archaeological surveys will utilize two general methods 1) hand excavation and 2) mechanical trenching. Hand excavation will begin with shovel test units (STUs, 3.3 feet by 1.6 feet by 8 inches deep) where deposits are observed on the surface. Based on findings at STUs further evaluation may occur with Control Units (CUs, 3.3 by 3.3 feet by 28 inches deep). Mechanically excavated (i.e., by backhoe) trenches will occur where STUs are not feasible. Geotechnical drilling is also required in advance of the proposed roadway realignment project to evaluate the soil type(s) within the likely action area of the future roadway project. A track-mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow-stem/mud-rotary auger will be used to complete geotechnical drilling. The approximately 30 required holes will either be 4 or 6 inches in diameter and will have an impact area of up to 8 inches in diameter by conservative estimates. Work will require placement of temporary fill within 0.01 acre of seasonal wetlands. All work shall be completed in accordance with the plans and drawings titled "USACE File #2010-00280N, SON 001 Gleason Beach Area Realign Roadway Project, August 29, 2013, Figures 1 to 2" provided as enclosure 1.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) generally regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material below the plane of ordinary high water in non-tidal waters of the United States, below the high tide line in tidal waters of the United States, and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to these waters. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act generally regulates -2- construction of structures and work, including excavation, dredging, and discharges of dredged or fill material, occurring below the plane of mean high water in tidal waters of the United States; in former diked baylands currently below mean high water; outside the limits of mean high water but affecting the navigable capacity of tidal waters; or below the plane of ordinary high water in non-tidal waters designated as navigable waters of the United States. Navigable waters of the United States generally include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; and/or all waters presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for future use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. An authorized jurisdictional determination was completed and dated certified August 4, 2010.

Based on a review of the information in your submittal, the project qualifies for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (NWP) 6 for Survey Activities, 77 Fed. Reg. 10,184, February 21, 2012, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.). The project must be in compliance with the terms of the NWP, the general conditions of the Nationwide Permit Program, and the San Francisco District regional conditions cited in enclosure 2. You must also be in compliance with any special conditions specified in this letter for the NWP authorization to remain valid. Non-compliance with any term or condition could result in the revocation of the NWP authorization for your project, thereby requiring you to obtain an Individual Permit from the Corps. This NWP authorization does not obviate the need to obtain other State or local approvals required by law.

This verification will remain valid until March 18, 2017, unless the NWP authorization is modified, suspended, or revoked. Activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon a NWP will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of a NWP's expiration, modification, or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the authorization in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 330.4(e) and 33 C.F.R. §§ 330.5 (c) or (d). This verification will remain valid if, during the time period between now and March 18, 2017, the activity complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. The Chief of Engineers will periodically review NWPs and their conditions and will decide to either modify, reissue, or revoke the permits. If a NWP is not modified or reissued within five years of its effective date, it automatically expires and becomes null and void. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of any changes to the NWPs. Changes to the NWPs would be announced by Public Notice posted on our website (http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx). Upon completion of the project and all associated mitigation requirements, you shall sign and return the Certification of Compliance, enclosure 3, verifying that you have complied with the terms and conditions of the permit. -3-

This authorization will not be effective until you have obtained a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the RWQCB fails to act on a valid request for certification within two months after receipt of a complete application, the Corps will presume a waiver of water quality certification has been obtained. You shall submit a copy of the certification to the Corps prior to the commencement of work. This authorization will also not be effective until you have obtained a Consistency Determination from the California Coastal Commission. You shall submit a copy of the determination to the Corps prior to the commencement of work.

General Condition 18 stipulates that project authorization under a NWP does not allow for the incidental take of any federally-listed species in the absence of a biological opinion (BO) with incidental take provisions. As the principal federal lead agency for this project, Caltrans initiated consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to address project related impacts to listed species, pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).

General Condition 20 stipulates that any project affecting a historic property may not commence construction until the provisions of 33 C.F.R. pt. 325, Appendix C, have been satisfied. As the Federal lead agency for this project, Caltrans initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

In order to ensure compliance with this NWP authorization, the following special conditions shall be implemented:

1. The archaeological investigation has been designed to minimize potential impacts on wetlands by starting transects outside of the wetlands and only entering and conducting investigations within the wetlands when needed based on onsite findings in accordance with professional and scientific standards.

2. All soil and vegetation displaced from backhoe trenches and hand excavations will be placed back into the emergent wetlands as soon as possible following excavation. All natural material excavated during the archaeological investigation will be returned to its original site, so that the excavated units will be restored to pre-project conditions. During trenching activities, the top layer of vegetation/grass will be removed separately and placed back on top of the disturbed soil area to promote re-establishment.

3. A single ingress and egress to each work site within the project area will be established, and vehicle and foot traffic will be minimized as much as possible. -4-

4. The holes created as a result of the geotechnical drilling will be backfilled with a solid matrix, such as bentonite, to within 6 or 8 inches of ground level, and the remainder of the holes will be backfilled with native topsoil.

5. Trenches and excavation units will be left open for as little time as possible.

6. Nighttime work will be avoided, and the investigations will be conducted during the dry season (June 1 to October 15, or unless otherwise directed by the Service).

7. Caltrans will follow the avoidance and minimization measures as described in both water pollution control plans for the archaeology and geotechnical investigations, titled "Water Pollution Control Program for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project Archeological Investigation" dated July 12, 2013.

8. To remain exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, the non-discretionary Terms and Conditions for incidental take of federally-listed California red-legged frog and Myrtle's silver spot butterfly shall be fully implemented as stipulated in the Biological Opinion titled, "Biological Opinion for the Proposed Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, California (Caltrans EA 04- 0A0200)" (pages 1 to 37) dated August 20. 2013 (Enclosure 4). Project authorization under the NWP is conditional upon compliance with the mandatory terms and conditions associated with incidental take. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions for incidental take, where a 'take' of a federally-listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take and non-compliance with the NWP authorization for your project. The USFWS is, however, the authoritative federal agency for determining compliance with the incidental take statement and for initiating appropriate enforcement actions or penalties under the Endangered Species Act.

9. In accordance with the "Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration ofthe Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (PA)". Project authorization under the NWP is conditional upon your compliance with the mandatory stipulations of the MOA cited in enclosure 5. -5-

You may refer any questions on this matter to of my Regulatory staff by telephone at or by e-mail at . All correspondence should be addressed to the Regulatory Division, referencing the file number at the head of this letter.

The San Francisco District is committed to improving service to our customers. My Regulatory staff seeks to achieve the goals of the Regulatory Program in an efficient and cooperative manner, while preserving and protecting our nation's aquatic resources. If you would like to provide comments on our Regulatory Program, please complete the Customer Service Survey Form available on our website: http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html. Sffire~1/

JaneM~ Chief, Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Copies Furnished (w/o encls):

CA RWQCB, Santa Rosa, CA U.S. EPA, San Francisco, CA CDFW, Yountville, CA USFWS, Sacramento, CA This page left blank intentionally. COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMITANDRESOURCEMANAGEMENTDEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

November 7, 2013

CalTrans Attn: Hardeep Takhar

Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Coastal Permit Not Required, File No. PLP13-0038 APNs 101-110-005 and 101-130-013, 6000 and 7050 Highway 1, Bodega Bay

Dear Hardeep:

Following up from a meeting between CalTrans and Sonoma County PRMD staff the week of October 21, we have determined that a coastal permit is not required for the geotechnical and archaeological investigations for the Highway 1 realignment near Gleason's Beach. These activities are categorically excluded under "L - Geotechnical studies not requiring a grading permit." Specifically, we determined that the scope of work is considered exploratory explorations under the direction of a soils engineer or engineering geologist. CalTrans has demonstrated that all required permits have been obtained from the appropriate permitting agencies.

You may be eligible for a partial refund of fees. Please complete the highlighted section of the enclosed Refund Request form and return it to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at . Please refer to your file number (PLP13-0038) and site address when making inquiries.

Sincerely, ~~ Misti Harris Project Planner

Enclosure

c: Lilian Acorda, CalTrans Philip Ballard, Property Owner Hendren Properties, Property Owner Lindsay Vivian, CalTrans Jeanette Weisman, CH2M Hill File No. PLP13-0038

S:\PROJ_REVIEW\2013\PLP\PLP13-0038\PLP13-0038 Letter Coastal Permit not required.doc This page left blank intentionally. COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

December 16, 2013

Lindsay Vivian CalTrans District 4 Division of Environmental Planning and Engineering

Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Cumulative Impacts Information, Highway 1 Realignment at Gleason's Beach

Dear Lindsay,

This letter responds to your request for information about pending projects in the vicinity of Gleason's Beach to inform your cumulative impacts analysis. I reviewed Coastal Permit applications from 2010 to present to determine expected development projects in the vicinity of Gleason's Beach. I did not include remodels, additions, or other modifications to existing facilities because they each resulted in negligible, if any, expansion of existing single-family dwellings (SFDs) or commercial uses with no intensification of use. I did not include CalTrans applications for Coastal Permits because you have more current information about those proposals.

Private Projects

In process No NewSFD

Issued No NewSFD

Issued No New SFD

Issued Yes NewSFD

Issued No Retaining walls for SFD on Gleason's Beach

Public Projects • The Coastal Prairie Trail project is a Sonoma County Regional Parks project to construct one mile of multi-use trail from the community of Salmon Creek south to the north end of the town of Bodega Bay (Keefe Avenue to approximately Bay Hill Road). Construction on the southern segment, owned by Regional Parks, likely will occur next year. Construction on the northern segment, owned by State Parks, is on hold awaiting funding. • Accessibility upgrades at Doran Beach Regional Park should start this month. A Coastal Permit was issued for this project earlier this month. • The Local Coastal Plan is being updated. California Coastal Commission staff reviewed and submitted comments on a second Administrative Draft in late 2012, and staff has completed

·-···------···············------responding to these comments. Coordination with the Coastal Commission is anticipated to continue through 2016. New policies to address shoreline protection and coastal bluff erosion are being considered.

Other • A new telecommunications facility is proposed at 1840 Bay Flat Road, Bodega Bay. This parcel is within Coastal Commission jurisdiction.

I would recommend contacting the Coastal Commission, State Parks, and Sonoma County Regional Parks to identify any projects within the jurisdiction of those agencies. If you have any questions, please contact me at or . Thank you for the opportunity to provide input at this time. I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Sincerely,

Misti Harris Project Planner c: File

S:\PROJ_REVIEW\COASTAL\Caltrans Hwy 1 Gleason's Beach Bypass Project\lettercumulative impacts information 12.12.13.doc COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103

August 26, 2014

Jeanette Weisman CH2M Hill

Oakland, CA 94612

Re: . Cumulative Impacts Update, Highway 1 Realignment at Gleason's Beach

Dear Jeanette,

This letter serves as an update to my December 2013 letter to Lindsay Vivian that identified pending projects in the vicinity of Gleason's Beach. Both letters should be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. I reviewed Coastal Permit applications in 2014 to determine new development projects in the vicinity of Gleason's Beach and checked the status on previously identified projects. I did not include remodels, additions, or other modifications to existing facilities because they each resulted in negligible, if any, expansion of existing single-family dwellings (SFDs) or commercial uses with no intensification of use. I did not include CalTrans applications for Coastal Permits because you have more current information about those proposals.

p.nvate p roJects. ••:; •·"'?~·: -',';./:·i'l,!:',!·;,1

Coastal Permit Status Building Permit Issued? Project I ., 1111 In process No 2-lot subdivision

Issued No NewSFD

Issued No New SFD

Within Coastal No New cell tower (needs Commission jurisdiction County design review) *Issued No Drainage improvements for SFD on Gleason's Beach **Issued Yes New 55' retaining wall for SFD on Gleason's Beach *This project was previously noted as retaining walls in error; the coastal permit allows drainage improvements only. **This coastal permit was received in 2009 and added at your request.

Public Projects • Construction on the southern segment of the Coastal Prairie Trail will start very soon. The parking lot at Keefe Avenue is under construction. • Accessibility upgrades at Doran Beach Regional Park have commenced. • The Local Coastal Plan is being updated. The public review draft of the Local Coastal Plan Update is expected to be released the first quarter of 2015. If you have any questions, please contact me at or . Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update.

Sincerely, t- ~ J.-- - r---~" ,1,rl \ LU);,\/\, ~{bt,LLLQ_./r+- I ... Misti Harris Project Planner

c: File

S:\PROJ_REVIEW\COASTAL\Caltrans Hwy 1 Gleason's Beach Bypass Project\letter cumulative impacts update Aug 2014.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G_ BROWN Jr.• Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 fi PHONE (510) 286-5900 Serious drought. FAX (510) 286-5903 Help save water! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov

October 23, 2014

Ms. Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation

Sacramento, CA 95816

RE: Eligibility Determinations for Five Archaeological Sites for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA (FHW A120803B)

Dear Ms. Roland-Nawi:

The California Department of Transportation - District 4 (Caltrans) is continuing consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, which proposes to realign State Route 1 (SR-1) inland, away from the eroding coastline, between postmiles 15.01 and 15.70 in Sonoma County. Caltrans is continuing consultation in accordance with the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (hereafter, the PA). Caltrans previously consulted with the SHPO in August 2012 and July 2013 regarding the evaluation of built environment resources for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

In accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6 and 36 CFR § 800.4(c)(2), Caltrans is consulting regarding determinations of eligibility for five archaeological sites within the Undertaking's Area of Potential Effects (APE). Enclosed is one copy of the Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR), with attached evaluation report: Extended Phase I/Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, State Route 1, EA 0A0200 (Kaijankoski et al 2014).

The following archaeological sites have been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP:

■

"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" In accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6(a), Caltrans looks forward to receiving your response within 30 days of your receipt of this submittal. If you concur with our eligibility determinations, these actions satisfy the Caltrans' responsibilities under Stipulation VIII.C.6(a). In the event you do not concur with Caltrans' findings of eligibility, further consultation will be carried out in accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6(a).

The Undertaking currently has three alternative alignments that are being considered as part of the Draft Environmental Document. Selection of the preferred alternative prior to the finalization of the BIR/Complex EA will determine the Section 106 and CEQA findings for the Undertaking. Caltrans will continue SHPO consultation in accordance with Stipulations IX.Band X of the PA.

If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact myself at or , or or .

Sincerely,

~ c,...,'o ~ l'\r', c....\ ~ Elizabeth McKee Office Chief Office of Cultural Resources Studies California Department of Transportation - District 4

Enclosed: (1) Historic Property Survey Report for the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, State Route 1, EA 0A0200 (Darko 2014). (2) Extended Phase I/Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, State Route 1, EA 0A0200 (Kaijankoski et al 2014). c: Kelly Hobbs, Section 106 Coordinator; District 4 OCRS files; HRC files STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

November 4, 2014

Reply in Reference To: FHWA120803B

Elizabeth McKee, Office Chief Department of Transportation, District 4 Office of Cultural Resources Studies

Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Re: Continuing Section 106 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on the Eligibility Determinations of Five Archaeological Sites for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, State Route 1, Sonoma County, CA

Dear Ms. McKee:

Thank you for your October 23, 2014 letter in which the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is continuing SHPO consultation on the above referenced undertaking in accordance with the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Office, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California. In accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6 and 36 CFR §800.4(c)(2), Caltrans is requesting concurrence of determinations of eligibility of five archaeological sites located within the area of potential effect (APE).

The five archaeological sites include the following:

A Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) and the Extended Phase I/Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, State Route 1, EA 0A0200 report (Kaijankoski et al. 2014) were enclosed with your letter.

Efforts to evaluate the five archaeological sites included Phase I/Phase II investigations of the resources conducted by archaeologists with Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. (Far Western). The Extended Phase I investigations were performed to determine if previously recorded sites were within the APE, or if any buried cultural deposits were present. The Phase II investigations were executed to determine site boundaries, integrity, and eligibility of the resources according to National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria. Ms. McKee FHWA120803B November 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2

Based on the results of the Phase II investigations, Caltrans has determined that are eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. I have reviewed your letter and supporting documentation and concur with your determinations.

Thank you for seeking my comments and considering historic properties as part of your undertaking. Please be advised that under certain circumstances, such as post-review discoveries or a change in the undertaking description, you may have future responsibilities for this undertaking under the PA and 36 CFR Part 800. If you require further information, please contact .

Sincerely,

Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.• Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 Serious drought. PHONE (510) 286-6046 Serious drought. FAX (510) 286-5903 Help save water! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov

Dr. Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor February 18, 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 04-Son-PM 15.1/15.7 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

Sacramento, CA 95825

Dear Dr. Norris:

We are proposing a project to realign State Route 1 for 0.6 miles in Sonoma County at Gleason Beach. The project is five miles north of Bodega Bay.

The purpose of the project is to realign the roadway up to 400 feet inland away from the eroding coastline. The project includes a 900 foot bridge over Scotty Creek and the removal of an existing culvert which is a known fish passage barrier.

We request an amendment to an existing Biological Opinion (81420-2010-F-0007-2), which we received from you dated August 20, 2013. The previous Biological Opinion was prepared to cover preliminary geotechnical and archaeological studies to support the selection of a preferred alternative.

Enclosed is a Biological Assessment which discusses the project's effects on the federal listed species. We request your concurrence that the proposed roadway realignment project may affect and is likely to adversely affect two species: the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and the endangered Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrtleae).

If you have any questions, please call me at , or of my staff at . Thank you very much.

Sincerely, ~.~ Office of Biological Sciences and Permits c. J. Cleckler enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND A VENUE P. 0 . BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-7182 Serious drought. FAX (510) 286-6374 Help save water!! TTY (800) 735-2929

March 16, 2016

Ms. Katerina Galacatos San Francisco District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

San Francisco, California 94103-1398

RE: File Number 2010-00280N

Attn: Patricia Goodman

Dear Ms. Galacatos:

Caltrans is proposing to construct the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project on State Route 1 in Sonoma County. The project is located between post miles 15.1 and 15.7 about five miles north of Bodega Bay. The purpose of the project is to realign SR 1 inland away from the eroding coastline. This project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and waters under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction.

The approved jurisdictional determination for this project (File Number 2010-00280N) expired on August 4, 2015. We are requesting verification that the expired jurisdictional determination is still valid. Former Corps staff conducted a delineation for this project on July 27, 201 0, and included field observations that were hand drawn on an aerial image. Wetland areas were subsequently delineated and mapped utilizing a Global Positioning System unit with sub-meter accuracy.

Please find an enclosed map of potentially jurisdictional features. None of the conditions onsite have changed since 2010. In order to the meet the schedule for the Final Environmental Document, we would like to receive an approved jurisdictional determination by May 1, 2016.

If you have any questions, please contact Project Biologist, , at or at .

Sincerely,

~~c,A \)l)_aj)_ft_A,vwd-,ffebz~ Frances Malamud-Roam, Ph.D Senior, West Counties Delivery Office of Biological Sciences and Permits District 4, Oakland

"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

April 20, 2016

Reply in Reference To: FHWA120803B

Brett Rushing, Chief Office of Cultural Resource Studies California Department of Transportation . Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Re: Section 106 Consultation for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project, State Route 1, Sonoma County, California

Dear Mr. Rushing:

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) received your letter on April 1, 2016 requesting review and comment with regard to the above-referenced undertaking. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Office, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Section 106 PA). Pursuant to Stipulation X.C.2 of the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR § 800.5(d)(2), Caltrans is requesting concurrence on their finding of adverse effect as a result of this undertaking. Along with the consultation letter, the following documents were provided:  Finding of Effect (FOE) for the Proposed Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project Sonoma County, California (Castano 2016);  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the California State Historic Preservation Officer and the California Department of Transportation Regarding the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project in Sonoma County, California; and  Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) Proposal and Treatment Plan for the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, California (Kaijankoski et al. 2016).

Caltrans previously consulted with the SHPO in August 2012, July 2013, and October 2014 on their determination of eligibility of archaeological and built environment resources for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In previous identification efforts for this undertaking, Caltrans identified the following seven historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE): , , CA , CA- , CA , and CA . The historic properties include the following:  ;  ;  CA- ;  CA- ;  CA- ;  CA- Mr. Rushing FHWA120803B April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 2

 .

Caltrans has applied the criteria of adverse effect per 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1) and has determined the following:  No adverse effect to and ;  No adverse effect with standard conditions to CA-SON-347; and  Adverse effect to CA , CA , CA , and CA .

I have no objections to Caltrans’ finding of no adverse effect to and . The undertaking will not alter, either directly or indirectly, the characteristics of the properties that make them eligible of the NRHP. While the relocation of the Scotty Creek Bridge at Gleason Beach and realignment of SR-1 will introduce a visual intrusion to the building’s setting, the property’s visual view of the ocean and coastal setting will not be altered. I agree that the proposed undertaking will involve physical destruction of or damage to CA , CA , CA , and CA , thus resulting in the loss of the properties’ integrity and constituting an adverse effect.

Based on my review of your letter and supporting documentation, I concur with your finding of adverse effect as a result of this undertaking. Caltrans proposes to resolve the adverse effect by entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO and implementing an Archaeological Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for CA , CA , , and CA , and to establish an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) to protect CA from inadvertent adverse effects.

Thank you for seeking my comments and considering historic properties as part of your undertaking. I look forward to continuing consultation with Caltrans on the resolution of adverse effects pursuant to the Section 106 PA Stipulation XI and 36 CFR §§ 800.6(a) and 800.6(b)(1), and will review and comment on the enclosed Draft MOA and the Archaeological Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. If you require further information, please contact of my staff at or at .

Sincerely,

Julianne Polanco State Historic Preservation Officer U,S, FlSll&WILDLIFE smtVICE United States Department of the Interior .....

:., .·J!ll'/.i FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE " ·:"{<(V Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office " In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 81420-2010- Sacramento, California 95825-1846 F-0007-R00l-1

Ms. JoAnn Cullom California Department of Transportation 4 Environmental Division, MS-8E MAY 2 2016

Oakland, California 94612

Subject: Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the Gleason Beach State Route 1 Realignment Project, Sonoma County, California (Caltrans EA 0A0200)

Dear Ms. Cullom:

This reinitiation is in response to the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) February 18, 2016, request to reinitate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed Gleason Beach State Route 1 (SR 1) Realignment Project in Sonoma County, California. The overall project will realign an approximately 3,500-foot length of SR 1, including the existing crossing of Scotty Creek, adjacent to Gleason Beach. At issue are the effects of the amended proposed project on the Federally endangered Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Spryeria zerene myrtleae and Federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii This response is provided under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)(Act), and in accordance with the implementing regulations pertaining to interagency cooperation (50 CFR 402).

The original Biological Opinion for the Gleason Beach SR 1 Realignment Project was issued on August 20, 2013 (Service File #81420-2010-F-0007-2). The original BO was completed solely for the proposed archaeological and geotechnical investigations needed to support Caltrans's selection of a preferred project design alternative. Caltrans conducted the proposed archaeological investigations between November 14 and December 13, 2013. The proposed geotechnical investigations began on November 3, 2015 and are expected to be completed by October 2016. Caltrans has since selected a realignment project design and this reinitiation addresses the effects to Federal listed species associated with the proposed roadway realignment construction. This amendment is presented in our standard BO template to fully address the issues that are specific to the SR 1 realignment construction phase.

This amendment is based on: (1) the August 20, 2013, BO (Service File #81420-2010-F-0007-2); (2) Caltrans's February 2016 Supplemental Biological Assessment (BA); (3) additional information provided by Caltrans on April 29, 2016; (4) correspondence with Caltrans between December 2015 and May 2016; (5) other baseline information regarding the subject species and project location available to the Service and (6) updated formatting and standard language changes made by the Servic This page left blank intentionally. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov

May 25, 2016

Reply in Reference To: FHWA120803B

Kelly J. Hobbs Chief, Section 106 Coordination Branch Department of Transportation Cultural Studies Office Caltrans HQ DEA

Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

Re: Memorandum of Agreement for the Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project in Sonoma County, California

Dear Mr. Hobbs:

Thank you for forwarding a Memorandum of Agreement for the above referenced undertaking pursuant to Stipulation XI of the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Office, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California.

Enclosed please find a copy signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer. To complete the process, forward a copy to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for final filing.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact of my staff at or at .

Sincerely,

Julianne Polanco State Historic Preservation Officer This page left blank intentionally.